Lots of comments around the line of "ok maybe 30% is too much, but we can all agree they offer a valuable service, so what percentage should they take ?"
Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ?
Give a price to be listed in store, to be reviewed, to be downloaded by a user, ... And let company pay what they owe you. Let them pay through the provider they can negotiate and then pay you back the cost they owe you.
It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the same in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me. Their current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for services and infrastructure usage, it's setup like a tax.
I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is providing significant benefit to either consumers or developers for their 30% cut when they seem incapable of reigning in obvious fraud.
In addition, I think Apple pushing subscriptions as a solution for long term app funding (instead of upgrade pricing or other options) has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services. Apple didn't invent SaaS, but they sure did popularize it for consumer-facing apps.
Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store.
> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store.
But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it?
It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is not a utility or natural resource. Apple built it from nothing and they're its sole owner. If it's a crappy experience, the solution to me still seems to be to migrate to a competitor (I'm toying with the idea of trading my Galaxy for a Librem 5).
There seems to be a mentality that megacorps have to have their hand held to not be public menaces, but by doing this my fear is we fortify Goliath rather than giving David a shot to kill him. The main reason I see this hasn't happened yet is that we've let the giants get away with corporate murder (e.g. Facebook's acquisition of both Instagram and WhatsApp), not because innovation is dead.
And national regulation is a pretty patchwork solution anyway to corporations that can (and sometimes do) go toe-to-toe with national governments.
Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app distribution market, and they're abusing that duopoly in an anticompetitive manner to prevent companies from competing with them in mobile app distribution. Anti-trust legislation gives regulators the right to order and prosecute companies for abusing their market positions and for limiting the ability of the free market to deliver to consumers better, more efficient and less costly solutions.
Microsoft in the late 1990's and early 2000's was in a similar situation. They abused their position in the PC operating system market in an anticompetitive manner to prevent competition in the browser market[1]. Microsoft built their OS and Internet Explorer, so who has the right to tell them what they can and cannot do with them? It turns out that the federal government and regulators around the world have that right.
This is like asking why regulators have right to prevent Standard Oil from engaging in anticompetitive behavior, given that Standard Oil built their own pipelines and railroads, after all.
Restaurants doesn't sell silverware. And even if they did they wouldn't have 10% of EU as customers. EU puts their anti trust laws for marketplaces at 10% instead of defining it as a monopoly, at that size you have to play fair.
Restaurants sell a bundled experience. The use of their silverware is part of what I buy.
You could argue that the restaurant shouldn’t be a gatekeeper. Other parties could let me enjoy a cheaper meal, competing to offer the most discounted silverware. My $10 burger could be $9 if I could rent a paper plate from a third party and eat on the floor. After all, the restaurant shouldn’t abuse it’s monopoly, right?
What are you talking about. A restaurant doesn’t have the power to steer an economy of billions of dollars worldwide (the phone app market) . Apple and google do. Do you understand the risk for countries to allow one single private company to have complete control over the life/jobs of hundreds of thousands of citizens (app developers) that could be just destroyed by the whim of one of these two companies? It’s the price of creating a multi billion dollar business. You have to take responsibilities that go beyond your own revenue as you have worldwide power.
If the "app developer" doesn't feel fair to work for apple app store / google play store, they could work for other android app store or, they could work for the web.
Even there are many Apple App developer on the world doesn't mean they cannot choose to left.
Well that’s not how it works. When a company controls a very important piece of something society starts to rely on (oil, information, communication ... etc), regulation is not just preferable . It is NECESSARY.
When you are the only two Restaurant in town that offers dinning services and somehow these restaurant has a high barrier of entry so other restaurant cant compete, then yes. How much and what silverware you use could then be a problem.
And I could force you to buy silverware made in X.
People who choose to do business by selling a phone or opening a restaurant choose to do so within the context of the rules and regulations that society imposes on businesses of their sort. If they or society don't like the current rules they are free to lobby congress.
There isn't any inherently correct answer just a variety of possible answers with various outlooks for many parties.
I don't think anyone regards a restaurant as a market for silverware and plates where different vendors compete but Apple explicitly clearly runs a market for apps which is a notably different situation from selling burgers.
There is everyone reason to suppose that burgers ought to be regulated differently from software and regulators, lawmakers, and courts aren't robots required to interpret law like code. Reasonable results require both the literal text of the law and common sense.
A lawsuit attempting to force Burgerville to allow third party plate rental would run into the common sense conclusion that the Burgerville isn't presenting plates inc an opportunity to do business with customers they are simply offering them an opportunity to sell n plates to Burgerville for usage in their business.
Apple runs a store, not a market. This is the key distinction to my mind. In a store I expect curation and payola. On a market I expect independent hagglers.
I imagine if Plateify, a hot startup from the EU, wanted to get into the American Burger King “plate market”, they could get all sort of different attention from lawmakers.
Anyway, where’s the line to a “sub market”? If it’s the soda brand that goes with your burger? Should consumers always be able to get Pepsi cheaper than Coke? The whole reasoning is complex and arbitrary. I’d much rather just let companies decide what they want to bundle and unbundle.
It doesn't have a monopoly. Now if one restaurant chain controlled 50% of the market, suddenly you've got good reason to treat them as a platform and regulate them accordingly.
The difference is, if you don't like it you can leave the restaurant and choose any other. You have no lock in. Once you've bought an iOS device, you can't buy apps anywhere else.
Even if you forget the sunk cost you just have two providers to choose from.
I can always get my next phone from Samsung, just as I can always get my next meal from McDonalds.
But this meal is locked in. If I don’t like the pickles on my whopper, they don’t provide McDonald’s pickles, do they? The don’t allow me to get a McFlurry with my Chicken Sandwich?
Bundling is allowed in every other instance and is key to many great products. Apple can do it too.
You are significantly more locked in to your phone than your meal. There are also more choices for where to eat that what phone OS you want to have. Your phone OS is also a gateway to many different industries. Transactions made on a smart phone make up an ever expanding portion of economic activity, whereas eating-at-restaurant generally remains a constant portion of consumer spend.
Also whoever came with this ridiculous analogy probably goes to a restaurant and then eats there their every meal for the next 2 or 3 years, thinks restaurants have popular multi billion marketplaces of silverware where they charge 30% to providers, which is a significant part of their revenue, and at the same time their own silverware factory which doesn't get the fee, lives in a world where 2 restaurant chains own 99.9% of the market...
I go to a restaurant for food and drinks, not silverware.
I'm not smart enough to make an argument about food pricing but some restaurants let you bring your own bottle of wine as long as you pay a 'corkage fee'
> What precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built?
This does not concern setting precedents. The antitrust laws are already there, this is just a case of them being applied.
More broadly speaking, I'm not really sensitive to the argument "they built the platform, so they should get to choose to do with it whatever they want". Network effects are so large that there is effectively zero competition. What little competition there is can be easily squashed by Apple throwing a minuscule portion of its capital at it.
We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give small businesses a chance.
Can we please stop pretending corporations have feeling and liberties the way natural persons do? It reads like collective insanity "stones have feeling too".
Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought by Apple).
> We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give small businesses a chance.
The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance? Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom? National legislation historically has been a method of pulling up the ladder behind robber barons, not of giving the little guy a chance.
> Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought by Apple).
EU forcing Apple to lower app store fees to 5% or something similar wouldn't remove the network effect though, there is no incentive for EU to allow Apple to extract that fee. Tell me this, what would EU lose by capping App store fees in general? App stores would still operate there, App store companies would still be very profitable, they would just be less of a leech on the economy.
> The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance? Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom?
Regulating those companies greatly reduced their ability to extract money from the market and therefore contributed to the plethora of small companies in other domains we see today. We don't see small companies in oil or pharma since those domains requires scale, which is why we instead of forcing competition force regulations on them to make them do the right thing.
I mean, imagine if we let the oil companies take 30% of GDP as revenue, it would totally ruin the economy and prevent us from progressing as a society. You could argue that those oil companies deserved to get that much money since without them how would we get to work? But, fact is that giving large companies that much money doesn't benefit anyone but their shareholders.
> what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it?
We are setting no new precedent. In the US, internet provider are regulated as utilities and are stripped of any power on the content they serve, and the platform thrived as a result. What would Internet look like today if AOL had applied Apple's policies?
If we go by that precedent, destroying the closed gardens around platforms is the best thing that could happen.
If we choose to ignore it, then shouldn't we welcome that network carriers demand their 30% share of Apple's profits?
> In the US, internet provider are regulated as utilities and are stripped of any power on the content they serve, and the platform thrived as a result. What would Internet look like today if AOL had applied Apple's policies?
About the same as it looks today. AOL was a walled garden, and unregulated internet was so compelling that AOL was forced to offer it, or die, like so many other services did; of course, AOL still pretty much died, but it lasted the longest of the pre-internet national information services. Incidentally, that was back when it was easy to switch between competitive ISPs or set up your own and there was not much in the way of regulation. Now, we live under the threat of the cable and telephone companies pushing their products. Not a whole lot of clear regulation now, and not even the basis for local loop unbundling like congress provided in 1996, but the FCC watered down until it meant hardly anything.
If Apple wants to keep a tight control on the app offerings and pricing on their store, they should be able to do that. But as there's no official way to install apps outside of that, it's really an unfair position to put the users and developers in to.
"what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? "
They key word is 'platform'.
It's designed for 'broad public consumption', this is different than other, purely internal aspects of their service.
So Ford or GM cannot stop you from buying other vendors stuff and tweaking your car. The very thought would be absurd. A car is designed to be at very least maintained, they can void warranties etc. but not have absolute control.
BMW is stricter about those things, which is fine, but it's still outside of their control.
Finally, I think the reach of the platforms actually does matter - once something becomes a public good, we treat it differently.
Imagine if the electric company in 1921 only ever let you buy appliances 'made by them' suited for 'their electricity', it's just not good.
A similar situation is MS using their platform monopoly to dominate other areas, such as MS Office, which I think should have been regulated as well. Using a platform monopoly, companies can definitely dominating adjacent economies - even while providing an inferior product or experience, which is bad for everyone.
To your point, it's probably worthwhile for us to start defining in legal terms what we mean by 'platform' so the rules can be applied fairly.
You don't have to make up an imaginary electric company example when the real life phone company pulled that bullshit (and still sort of do tbh). In the old days you couldn't just buy a phone or something that used the phone line like an answering machine or some other device. No you had to lease a phone from the telephone company that was approved and installed by them. Hell they tried to stop people putting rubber cups on their phone receivers. And they also happened to have a majority stake in the phone manufacturer too...
Of fundamental importance is that they run a platform. A platform creates a new economy and letting one party (which is not the government) regulate a market is a bad idea.
Also, there is the network effect and there is vendor lock-in. In the past other companies could not use Bell's telephone network, so the government stepped in. The same could happen with OSes.
Don't forget, they built the platform, but 3rd party apps are what gives it value. Very few people would use an Apple device if they didn't have access to their games or productivity apps.
Moreover, users pay a high premium for their device to access the platform. Why should companies also pay in addition to the annual subscription fee to their developer program?
I’m a bit curious about this. I’ve been developing an impression that my willingness to install an app on my phone is a bit anomalous and that, as a rule, the trend is to install a core group of apps and use the browser for everything else.
Even for my day-to-day uses there’s only one or two third-party apps that really “add value” for me (Slack, Taskmator and Signal)
What about Microsoft and Windows then. People complained to death back in the day for anticompetitive behavior (and were right). The iPhone success is not only Apple’s success. Apple has to thank all the devs that supported its platform with their apps (yeah Facebook and google included) and without which the iPhone would be a gimmick. We can’t just ignore this and tell every developer after they get Sherlock ed to “suck it up and create your own platform you loser”.
Totally, the flow of value goes BOTH ways. The Mac in the 90s was on the verge a death, because you’d pay a premium for a platform with far fewer apps available for it than Windows 98. If Microsoft didn’t bring Office to the Mac, it would have been even more irrelevant.
Apps are the difference between “A phone with extra tricks” and “A computer in your pocket.”
These are very legitimate points. In my uneducated opinion, allowing other app stores to compete with Apple's would reduce the power of incumbents and allow Apple to compete on a level playing field. If another app store is better at filtering out spammy apps, or takes a smaller fee, then I just might install from their app store. It pushes Apple to improve their services than gouge as deeply as possible.
> has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services
On the PC I have a mail app that turned into a subscription service and there are downsides. I have a lifetime license and get all the updates because I bought it before it went subscription based.
Now it feels like there’s a relentless push for more features every month to justify the subscription. Every month there’s some stupid update that does something I don’t need or want.
And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox at Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn’t worth more than what my email provider charges me.
I won’t say the name because I think they’re a smaller company and they made good on all the lifetime licenses they sold afaik.
Drawboard PDF added subscription services after I bought it. Literally the only feature I wanted them to add was a lined paper template and they put that behind the subscription. Like I'm not paying monthly for that. Certainly not more than a few hundred sheets of actual lined paper cost which I would probably not use up for a few months...
> And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox at Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn’t worth more than what my email provider charges me.
Niche products will always charge more than the mass-market alternative. There isn't another sustainable business model for small companies.
interesting point i hadn't really considered, i guess the app store interface doesn't really lend itself to selling upgraded versions of your software, since you'd essentially be starting over in terms of ranking/ratings/etc every time you do that
> has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services
I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players). I understand that my Drafts subscription goes to pay the developer on an ongoing basis to support the product and add new features.
> I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players).
Why is that? The user interface hasn't significantly changed since the iPhone was launched. Why do apps need to be rewritten so many times?
Why should users pay once for software and then... need to pay for the same software again in 2 years even though there's really nothing that has improved?
Pay for a text editor? Why the hell wasn't a text editor well written on the first iPhone?
I’m sorry but your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development. The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, and there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI). On top of that, APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version. Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want.
Drafts, Apollo, Things, Overcast, and more are apps I pay subscriptions on so that they continue to add new features and keep compatibility with new iOS releases.
Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category?
> your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development
Perhaps it is.
> The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially,
How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it. A window is shown where I can type text in. If I receive a phone call or text message, something is displayed on the screen to alert me to that fact. I can tap on that to be brought to the event source. Or I can ignore it. When I close the app, there's usually some way for changes to be saved (sometimes automatically).
This workflow, as the user sees it, hasn't changed.
> there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI).
Did that deprecate compatibility with apps written in the older language?
> APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version
Like what? The context was a text editor app and todo apps. What has changed here?
> Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want.
That's pretty cool. What about basic features without needing a subscription?
> Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category?
Yup. It's almost always an app that's written in some trendy language, using some cloud feature, or some paid-for app. I use lots of free software on my laptop without that problem.
Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-consumer cloud email providers). Games from 20 years ago are a hit or a miss. A lot of times they work just fine with an emulator.
> Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-consumer cloud email providers).
What text editors and mail clients are you using regularly that (a) you paid for and (b) have not been regularly updated for 30 years and (c) still work on modern systems with modern file types and file systems?
To be direct, I highly suspect that any 30 year old applications you're referencing receive regular updates, are tragically underfunded, and the developers would ultimately benefit from upgrade or subscription pricing.
Of course, everyone loves a free lunch, but someone had to pay for the sandwiches.
> What text editors and mail clients are you using regularly that (a) you paid for
None. The text editors and mail clients I use are free. They have been regularly updated for 30 years. And they still work on modern systems with modern file types and file systems.
Where appropriate, I do purchase and donate. Mozilla, Wikipedia, and some direct payments to certain developers, for example.
Thunderbird is good software. Vim, grep, and xterm are among the best text utilities in the world. Or, if you want, emacs.
> To be direct, I highly suspect that any 30 year old applications you're referencing receive regular updates, are tragically underfunded, and the developers would ultimately benefit from upgrade or subscription pricing.
I appreciate your directness.
Apps that don't to follow the latest anti-consumer trend don't need to be updated with new features every few months. They don't need bug fixes twice a day. Their development costs are massively less. And their development is often done because the developer needed the tool anyway. I'd call them altruistic. But I think a lot of apps would do better with more pro-consumer behaviors.
> > The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially,
> How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it.
From iOS 6->7 there was a huge UI change where they went from a skeuomorphic design to a much flatter design. Every year since then they tweaked the design of iOS. Sometimes it might be as easy as building your app against the newer SDK to get the updated look but even that isn't always "easy". That requires the newer Xcode version, oh wait, your signing cert is expired so you need to generate a new one of those, oh wait, this API has been deprecated and you need to switch to the new one that you put off doing, and the list goes on. Then there are the new features that you are expected to support, not by Apple but by your users. Widgets are a great example of this for iOS 14. But again, every version of iOS (or Android for that matter) requires minor tweaks. Sometimes you can get away with ignoring those for 1-2 versions but you are just setting yourself up for some painful tech debt down the road.
> > there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI).
> Did that deprecate compatibility with apps written in the older language?
I wouldn't put a firm date on Obj-C/Java being depreciated but Swift/Kotlin are clearly what Apple and Google respectively are betting the farm on. For iOS specifically, Swift continues to get the attention and it won't be long before we have some new framework that is Swift-only. Already the documentation is pretty heavily bent towards Swift and some frameworks don't make it easy to find the Obj-C docs/examples (and sometimes it just doesn't exist or you have to look at older versions of the SDK). Swift is clearly the future for iOS development and while you can still use Obj-C I'd be very wary of using it on anything new.
> > APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version
> Like what? The context was a text editor app and todo apps. What has changed here?
I'd say it's a combination of design and what's possible. Design and design trends change over time and if you ignore that then you will lose market share to another app that feels/is better to use. As for what is possible, the phones themselves have gained both hardware and software features that, if not leveraged, will also cause you to lose users. Screen size is a good one but take Dark Mode as a example. Some apps had themes and/or "Dark Mode" before it was introduced in iOS but not supporting it now can, once again, lead to you losing users who don't want to be blinded when they open their notes app (or Todo app). When it comes to "what's possible", Drafts, for example, has a whole concept of "Actions" that you can find in their Drafts Directory or make yourself. Things like "Save this note to Dropbox" or "Open Twitter with this note's content as the tweet" and the list goes on. I wrote a Draft Action for myself that grabs the current timestamp of what I'm watching on Plex and inserts it along with the name of the media into my note, I use this to make a note of scenes I like and might want to save for later or share with friends. Are actions strictly required for a notes app? No, I guess not but it was one of the top reasons I picked Drafts for my notes app (along with many other things).
> > Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want.
> That's pretty cool. What about basic features without needing a subscription?
Some apps do that. Apollo lets you use the base app for free but for nice/power-user features you have to pay for a subscription. The developer of that app updates it regularly, fixes bugs, and is active on his app's subreddit. Apollo is a Reddit client so not only does he have to deal with normal app development issues but with changes Reddit might make to their platform/api. Similarly, Twitter apps have had a number of challenges to address in the last 5+ years when it comes to integrating with the Twitter API.
> > Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category?
> Yup. It's almost always an app that's written in some trendy language, using some cloud feature, or some paid-for app. I use lots of free software on my laptop without that problem.
I mean... I have plenty of iOS games that have died because they were never updated. I paid for them once and now they don't run at all on my phone, they are buggy, or don't support my screen size. Mobile development is difficult and needs to be ongoing which leads us to subscriptions seeing how there isn't a better method out there that I'm aware of. I like the idea of fallback subscriptions (like what JetBrains does with their IDEs) but that's just not possible in the App Store or Play Store as they work today. Not to mention that idea falls apart when "services" are involved like with Carrot Weather/Weather Nerd or even something like Overcast that uses backend servers to sync your podcast feed.
> Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-consumer cloud email providers). Games from 20 years ago are a hit or a miss. A lot of times they work just fine with an emulator.
> And I've already paid for all of those. Once.
> Why should the iPhone be any different?
I guess it comes down to what you want out of a text editor. Maybe calling it a text editor isn't even really fair based on what I expect out of mine but take a look at something like BBEdit. It's been around for practically the entire lifetime of the Mac yet it continues to put out updates. Some of what's in those updates are just compatibility/bug fixes but speed and new features are also a big part of it too. Think of git, BBEdit has git support but 30 years ago that wasn't even a thing. Nowadays it is table stakes for most code editors. BBEdit charges for the new major versions of it's app and to me, if you are releasing on a regular schedule, that's pretty much the same as a subscription. Subscriptions allow a company to plan better and for users to get software at a much cheaper initial price while being able to leave at any point if they aren't happy with the software. I think this is overall a good thing.
If you are happy with 30 year old apps then more power to you but that's not been my experience on the desktop nor mobile. I bought Prompt (an SSH client from Panic) when it first came out and then a few years later bought Prompt 2 (Prompt 1 was written pre-iOS 7 and looked very dated by the time I updated). Now Prompt 2 looks dated and has 1 foot in the grave and the other on a banana peal and I'm looking at apps like Termius as a replacement. I don't love going from 1-time to subscription but both Prompt apps made it very clear that if you pay 1 time then don't expect any updates, you get what you get and that's that. Termius may cost me more in the long run but if it is continuously updated and adds features then I'll be happy. For example, it's supports Mosh now but there might be some new protocol in the future that people switch to.
Bottom line, tech marches on and apps that don't adapt will be left for ones that do. Subscriptions help solve part of that problem by incentivizing developers to keep their apps updated or people will leave for ones that do.
That makes sense and I can understand it. On the other hand, the a text editor and todo app aren't exactly new apps ideas.
> "Save this note to Dropbox" or "Open Twitter with this note's content as the tweet" and the list goes on.
Perhaps this is a failing on my part again but... how is that an app problem? If the user has a Dropbox account or Twitter account then don't those provide the services through the OS? So every app works with Dropbox (or Nextcloud or Google Drive or their local filesystem) and every app can share a link to Twitter (or to Nextcloud or Slack or Discord or Twitch or ...). Why does the app need special integrations with the provider?
I would argue that's a failure of Dropbox or Twitter. They shouldn't provide APIs or toolkits that apps need to use. They should integrate with the OS and become a provider of services to the OS. Then every app gets the ability to save things to Dropbox or post something to Twitter.
> Apollo lets you use the base app for free but for nice/power-user features you have to pay for a subscription.
Cool. Apollo isn't a text editor or a todo app though.
> I have plenty of iOS games that have died because they were never updated. I paid for them once and now they don't run at all on my phone
I assume they don't run on your current phone. Do they still run on your old phone?
> Mobile development is difficult and needs to be ongoing which leads us to subscriptions seeing how there isn't a better method out there that I'm aware of.
Mobile development doesn't need to be difficult. It's made difficult by Apple's continuously-moving goalposts.
> BBEdit charges for the new major versions of it's app and to me, if you are releasing on a regular schedule, that's pretty much the same as a subscription.
In many ways, I agree. But there's one important distinction. I can pull up my old Mac OS 9 machine and run my old BBEdit on it. I'd be willing to bet that if I bought BBEdit ten years ago for Mac OS X on Intel then it would still run on today's Mac OS X even if it doesn't have all of the fancy new features of a new version.
> Subscriptions help solve part of that problem by incentivizing developers to keep their apps updated or people will leave for ones that do.
I don't have a problem whatsoever paying for new features that I want and use.
What I have a problem with is this:
> apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services
Basic text editors and todo apps were solved decades ago. Why do users need to pay for simple text editors as a subscription service? That's a failure of Apple's ecosystem.
You clearly want to migrate the discussion to continued developer support and new features. So let's do that then.
Let me walk you through my experience. I want to use a terminal on my iPhone. I know that I get terminals for free in Mac OS, Linux, and even Windows has a command prompt. They're literally free. So I see the lack of one in iOS as anti-consumer. Or, most definitely, anti-power-user. But whatever. In Apple's infinite wisdom, users shouldn't have a terminal emulator. So off to the app store I go to search for one.
The first result for "terminal" is Termius. It says it needs `in-app purchases`. In-app purchases for a terminal emulator? That sounds like a scam.
The next one, xTerminal, also needs in-app purchses.
The third one, LibTerm, doesn't say that it needs in-app purchases. But it's 448.7MB in size. Why the hell does a terminal emulator need that much storage to install? Nope, sounds like malware.
The fourth one, SSH Client, also wants in-app purchases.
I've scrolled two pages and all four of the top results smell fishy. So I don't install a terminal on my phone. I keep using Linux because it does what I want for free.
Tech marching on doesn't need to bring scammy baggage with it. Apple's walled garden ecosystem has brought that. And they're not policing their walled garden against anti-consumer behavior.
I'll try to keep this reply much more brief. I think the divide between what we think come largely from my expanding into talking about subscription service as a whole instead of just the examples you gave: text editor and todo app.
I can completely understand why some people might be fine with a text editor or todo app that doesn't change much and I'll ceed the point to you that the speed of mobile platforms causes work that might not otherwise be needed. Some of that comes from it still being a changing landscape where technology is improving. Desktops/laptops have not seen as large of leaps in part because they started from a much higher point. For a long time mobile phones had to be pretty limited because if they weren't they'd burn through the battery in no time at all (see: lack of backgrounding in early iOS/Android). I think the desktop platform (Windows, macOS, Linux) started from a much more mature (and open) place and thus it was easier to write something that would stand the test of time. Even then, things like gedit still get updates, nothing is ever really "done".
> Basic text editors and todo apps were solved decades ago.
Yes they were, now people want non-basic versions of both which is was brings up to where we are today. Part of that "required churn" can be blamed on Apple/Google but some of it is due to things that just weren't possible before. I won't pretend that Siri is good but Siri Intents (I think that's what it's called) is a newer (last few years or so) addition and I think it's a decent example of "why would a todo app need a subscription". The platform changes and your users want you to take advantage of the new features so that they can say "Hey Siri, tell Things to remind me do X" (don't get me started on not being able to set defaults). Or, to bring back another example, I might want a widget on my home screen of the next few items on my todo list.
Are these features necessary for todo app? No, in the general sense of "necessary" but yes in the sense of "needed to compete in the mobile stores". Platform churn aside, these new features require ongoing development and subscriptions mean you can roll out a feature as soon as it's ready instead of waiting for the next major point release so you have a list of features worth paying for all a once. Could a developer gate each feature behind a 1-time IAP? Sure but as a developer all I can think of is "there be dragons", that sounds miserable to support.
I do want to address the terminal program point you made. I've used mobile terminal and later mTerm on my jailbroken iPhone. For moving around my local phone's FS it's decent enough but I hated using it for SSH. The UI was just too clunky for mobile which is why I paid for Prompt1/2. I understand the annoyance at paying for something that is free on desktop but I think that misses the amount of work it takes to get a good SSH client on mobile. Could Apple add a Terminal app in the next OS release? Sure they could but unless they put in a lot of work it would be a terrible experience. I'm not trying to pretend Apple is perfect or blameless but I understand the decision.
Lastly, I agree with you that there are some apps that exist that don't require a subscription but one has been shoehorned in. I don't pay for apps like that, I guess I bristled up when you mentioned text editors (to which I pivoted to my notes app, Drafts) and todo manager (to which my mind jumped to Things), both of which I pay via a subscription. Your broader point about subscriptions being forced into some apps that don't make sense is correct, I just think sometimes people throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to subscriptions.
PS: If you are looking for linux-like terminal on iOS I would suggest you look at iSH[0]. It's free, open source, and seems like it would be something you might like.
Again, thank you for a well-reasoned good conversation.
> Your broader point about subscriptions being forced into some apps that don't make sense is correct, I just think sometimes people throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to subscriptions.
I'm willing to pay for something that I spend a lot of time in it. Clearly the developer deserves to benefit from my benefit.
But I've been burned by phishing, scams, and malware. So I avoid anything that even looks like it. That undoubtedly throws out a lot of good software that I might enjoy. But it also means that the very same software has room to improve.
Thirty years ago, software had demos. Demos weren't laden with advertisements beyond "buy the full product to access this feature!". They didn't have clearly paid-for reviews. Most worked without locking my data after a time bomb expired. Many of those demos resulted in me paying for the software. Some of those demos resulted in me deciding that I didn't like or need the software. The demo fulfilled its purpose.
Way too many demos of games got me to buy the full release of those games. BBEdit, like you mentioned, had a Lite version.
Demos seem to be gone from the modern walled garden.
And of course, backend services aren't free and they're an ongoing cost. And apps rarely exist without backend services these days.
I much prefer an inexpensive subscription over ads or other approaches to revenue. Especially considering the consumer market has been sold on this idea that paying $10 for an app, even once, no matter how useful, is way too much money.
it's all relative - no system is perfect, some bad apps do slip through the cracks.
compared to Android, though? far far better, Google literally doesn't even try to police that sort of stuff, they just list it all anyway and take their cut, when this stuff comes to light Apple delists it but Google is perfectly satisfied to keep raking in their cut. That's the difference.
Both platforms host scams and malware, despite the fact that they claim operating an app store is a means of protecting consumers.
Microsoft does just fine allowing downloads from the web and presenting a permissions and security screen. They even have a database of signatures for apps that get flagged.
You don't see people screaming bloody murder that you can install software on your PC. We survived all this time just fine without the app store garbage.
Consumer protection is a gaslighting scheme to gain control and project into other verticals and industries. It's a type of monopolism we've never seen before.
Figure 3 provides a breakdown of infections by device type in 2020. Among smartphones, Android devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. Android devices were responsible for 26.64% of all infections, Windows/PCs for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for iPhones.
I wouldn't say this is "just fine". Perhaps you (and most HN commenters) have the technical knowledge to avoid installing malware but the vast majority of people using these devices do not.
They should take whatever percentage they want, even 100%, as long as they allow alternative ways to get apps onto the iPhone and to charge for in-app purchases. The problem isn’t that their price is too high, it’s that it’s the only game in town. Allow alternatives and then the price they choose can compete with the rest of them. We can see exactly how valuable of a service it really is.
Oh I absolutely agree. Like another commenter said below, another similar thing are payment processors fees, but it works because 1. you're free to use another one, or checks, or cash, or bitcoin, or anything else, and 2. the EU has strongly regulated their fees and imposed massive limits on what they can charge in %.
But are they similar? One could argue that Visa and PayPal have a monopoly on payments processed via the Visa network/PayPal credit. Consumers are free to choose another ecosystem, but if they don't, the business is forced to make business with them. Similarly, the consumer can choose to buy an Android (or have to phones/tablets), but if they choose Apple only, the business needs to work with Apple.
They're not similar, because Visa isn't in the music streaming business.
Apple is directly competing with Spotify with their Apple Music streaming service. Since Apple has complete control over the iPhone ecosystem, they can set the rules to harm other streaming service, or let their own service completely break the rules.
These anti-competitive rules aren't just about Company A relying on Company B to do business. It's about Company B also directly competing with Company A.
Yes, but if you have a VISA card you can still withdraw the money and pay in cash right? That's an alternative that doesn't involve switching over to another ecosystem.
Also, the EU regulations cap the fees and set up identical rules for everyone (unlike Apple where its own services are left through without a second thought even though they don't necessarily operate to the code).
> Yes, but if you have a VISA card you can still withdraw the money and pay in cash right? That's an alternative that doesn't involve switching over to another ecosystem.
Isn't VISA somewhat similar to an ecosystem? It's not perfect (you can not switch over all apps when switching from/to Android), but you still need to change something on your side. Yes, exchanging a plastic card is easier than switching a phone, but it's not fundamentally a different paradigm.
> Also, the EU regulations cap the fees and set up identical rules for everyone
I agree that this is a good idea, but it's not a fundamental problem with Apple's payment structure.
monopoly - "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity."
and
monopsony - "The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service."
People will always take the cheaper option, so might as well make that the only option instead of causing what will surely be claimed in the future as a decision trap for consumers. Hey, maybe 30% already was the cheaper option and they did just that?
Allowing sideloading apps or alternative app stores will send the platform straight to hell, by opening up new exploit vectors in an already insanely complex system, and/or creating new and perverse incentive models for app developers and app store providers.
We’re going to turn smartphones and the app ecosystem into what has become of journalism in the digital age of information because we want nice things for cheap/free.
Cheap/fast/good. Apple has always aimed for the last two. You’re going to have to sacrifice one to get the “cheap” part.
For starters, the AppStore is not "good" (from a customer perspective -- it sucks, the search is basically unusable except for exact string matches, and still then it shows you the competitor's ad for almost the whole screen before what you're actually looking for), and I don't even know what "fast" means in this context. Probably not review time, and definitely not "quickness of features" -- it took 5 years just to get demo videos. In reality, the fast/cheap/good thing (while for starters not being some actual "law"), is meant to apply to engineering and not market dynamics.
You seem to have a lot of faith in Apple having performed some secret formula 10 years ago to determine the cheapest price. I guess we don't need free markets for price signals at all! If we all had Apple's formula, we could have a completely government run system that determined the right price for everything. What a wonderful system that would be!
Anyways, I've covered in many other comments how Apple would be better off by allowing alternatives since they'd no longer be forced to balance this fine line of appearing "fair" while "strict":
> This is one of the tricky parts about AppStore discussions, it's not about being for or against the AppStore. In fact, I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in, and I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar. Then the AppStore could actually be about curation as opposed to fear-induced isolationism. Then Apple wouldn't have to inadvertently have political side-effects when it disallowed apps like HKMap.live.
> Being on the AppStore could still be advantageous beyond just "either that or you don't get to be on the iPhone at all.” Apple payment processing, iCloud integrations, Family-sharing, etc. could all be tied to being ON the AppStore, so there'd still be a huge incentive to try to ship that way. And side-loading doesn't have to be easy or even on by default.
That is your opinion. There is no merit in this subjective standpoint from a legal perspective unless you're willing to share the metric by which you arrived at this judgement.
> the fast/cheap/good thing (while for starters not being some actual "law"), is meant to apply to engineering and not market dynamics
That's exactly the context in which I mention it. The iPhone, operating system and app store are _huge_ engineering projects.
> I guess we don't need free markets for price signals at all!
I don't know what point you're making with this. We're in a thread literally discussing removing a freedom from Apple.
>> I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar
Setting aside the obvious difference, how is this different than outlawing murder, except for one day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be directed towards the less stringent alternative. You're just opening up the gates for a race to the bottom, something we've already had enough of IMO (and FWIW, I agree with you here: "I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in").
Remember all the "malware cleaners" that install viruses on Windows machines? Yeah, we're gonna get that on iOS. "But we already have that/similar" Yeah, it's gonna get worse, not better.
Your entire second quote is invalidated as well by your suggestion for alternatives. Nobody that the app store is meant to protect is going to use the curated store because they will be tricked/coerced into using the alternatives where people with less scruples can exercise more control.
> For starters, the AppStore is not "good"
That is your opinion. There is no merit in this subjective standpoint from a legal perspective unless you're willing to share the metric by which you arrived at this judgement.
You brought up goodness with fast/good/cheap! And you certainly provided zero "metrics" in defense of its goodness, I at least provided my perspective as a customer with a concrete issue. I literally provided a specific metric, search quality, immediately following the sentence. You OTOH just take it as a given that the store is "good," unless your implication was that the AppStore is "fast and cheap but not good," but I doubt that's the point you were trying to make.
> I don't know what point you're making with this. We're in a thread literally discussing removing a freedom from Apple.
The point is you believe that Apple can ahead-of-time know the cheapest price for something. You posit that a competitor on the iPhone would be incapable of arriving at a lower price. And for the record, if you read my comments, I never say that Apple should be forced to allow this. I think they should do this because it would be better for them and for me the customer. I think they are silly to continue putting themselves in the ire of so many groups by being so obstinate about this product, but even separate from that, it would give them fantastic arguments in their relationships with developers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26796845
> Setting aside the obvious difference, how is this different than outlawing murder, except for one day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be directed towards the less stringent alternative. You're just opening up the gates for a race to the bottom, something we've already had enough of IMO (and FWIW, I agree with you here: "I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in").
Yes, setting aside the obvious difference. I have provided a clear example. HKMap.live is an app that Apple took down to appease China. The AppStore creates a single point of failure for nations to target and cut off. Most people here think it was pretty shitty to remove that app while the citizens of Hong Kong were fighting for their voice. Maybe in your eyes that's the exact same thing as "The Purge" (I honestly can't believe this is where this conversation has devolved), but it isn't for me.
Here is a simpler example: Tor isn't on the Mac AppStore, but guess what, I can still get it on my Mac. And that's a good thing. I don't have the needs of a journalist abroad, but I'm glad they can safely surf the net even though I don't have those worries. I can understand why Apple doesn't want that front and center on the AppStore to put a target on their backs from countries like China. See, there's actually a lot of stuff that doesn't cleanly fall between good and "murder level bad". Hell, even just allowing FireFox with its own rendering engine is a clear example of a thing that most people don't think is akin to allowing porn onto the store, but that Apple nevertheless does not want on the store.
I frequently acknowledge that I probably would not use side-loading. I in fact would be someone that wants stricter rules on the store. I would actually like for Apple to boot every loot-box based game off the store for example. As far as I'm concerned, it's gambling that targets children. But I accept that that opinion is not shared by everyone, and thus I think we should have a system that allows for strict rules without also having them necessarily affect every single person, with the sole decision-maker being Tim Cook.
The other just ridiculously obvious difference is that I can opt-out of side-loading. No one is saying that every iPhone user should have to be forced to download every shady app on Earth from every second-tier AppStore. That's not the way it is on the Mac. It's so weird that you bring up Windows as the alternative to iOS rather than... the Mac, which seems like a much more obvious comparison point. I wonder if that's because the situation on the Mac isn't a catastrophic hellscape and thus doesn't serve sensationalist fear mongering.
As I said in that comment, side-loading would not have to be on by default, or even easily turned on. It could also warn you on every single app install that doesn't go through the AppStore (which would be awesome, but Apple obviously can't do this on their own AppStore because it goes against their narrative of the safety of the AppStore. Unfortunate, because if they did, it might actually help prevent a lot of these spam subscriptions. At least with out-of-the-AppStore downloads they could put super scary warnings every single time). In fact, it could even be disallowed with parental controls. There are a lot of obvious options in between "only the AppStore" and "MadMax dystopia where anything goes."
> HKMap.live is an app that Apple took down to appease China. The AppStore creates a single point of failure for nations to target and cut off. Most people here think it was pretty shitty to remove that app while Hong Kongers were fighting for a voice.
China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores is entirely beside the point of whether people in HK would be able to download and use a networked app.
>> how is this different than $ACTIVITY, except for one day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be directed towards the less stringent alternative
> I have provided a clear example. HKMap.live
You have not provided an argument as to how more attention, both positive and negative, wouldn't suddenly be paid to the alternative. If Apple allowed alternative apps stores, China could start applying pressure to them. Or, as I previously mentioned, firewall them. Apple, a $Trillion company, caved, why wouldn't a lesser organization?
> It's so weird that you bring up Windows as the alternative to iOS rather than... the Mac
Because Windows was the previous platform that most tech-unsavvy people used, and it was a cesspool of malware. My relatives didn't go from Windows machines to Macs or Androids, they went from Windows machines to iPads. It's those people I have in mind when I make these arguments as to the value of an app store. If there are relevant market metrics that show that I am wrong here, I'm glad to see them. I'm just speaking from personal experience: people who use iOS and Macs don't come to me with the same kinds of problems as Windows users (which I also struggled with for years). Therefore I have a strong interest in not letting iOS become something like Windows.
I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm picking on Windows. And people are constantly complaining about that, too, how their computing platforms are being locked down and will soon be devoid of any freedoms. To me it always sounds like the argument is coming from a place where they see some nefarious villain twirling his moustache and devising schemes to keep the masses in the grip of control. I see an organization of many many humans making engineering tradeoffs to create what are, IMO, extremely impressive devices and systems.
Let me be very clear about one thing:
> Maybe in your eyes that's the exact same thing as "The Purge"
> there's actually a lot of stuff that doesn't cleanly fall between good and "murder level bad"
> the situation on the Mac isn't a catastrophic hellscape and thus doesn't serve sensationalist fear mongering
> There are a lot of obvious options in between "only the AppStore" and "MadMax dystopia where anything goes."
I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation with the app store to actual literal murder, but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point was entirely about the implementation and not at all about the regulated activity.
>> "Ignoring the obvious difference"
I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe the difference wasn't obvious to you, if you hadn't sarcastically quoted that exact phrase in your responses.
> China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores is entirely beside the point of whether people in HK would be able to download and use a networked app.
The HKMap.live situation happened before the Chinese Firewall was in place in Hong Kong (2019), so that's really not an excuse. Regardless, the great firewall doesn't necessarily prevent person-to-person sharing of an app for instance. Ultimately, you should absolutely put the ball in their court to actively have to fight the spreading of the app as opposed to being a willing participant. BTW, Tor, that thing you ignored in the rest of your post, was designed exactly to fight against things like the Chinese Firewall.
> I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm picking on Windows.
This just makes no sense. If you are making a case against a change, you don't point to the worst implementation of it just because it's the worst, especially when the party that would actually be implementing the alternative has already successfully done so on another platform. It's like a state arguing against marijuana legalization by pointing to a completely different country instead of many of the other US states that have successfully legalized it without catastrophic results. iOS is also "more secure by design". So why do you assume iOS would become Windows and not macOS? There is no logic here, just the desire to use an outdated and more convenient comparison point. If you honestly believe that iOS without the AppStore would become Windows and not the Mac, then you have a very bizarrely low opinion of the engineers on iOS.
> I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation with the app store to actual literal murder, but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point was entirely about the implementation and not at all about the regulated activity.
Yup, and I have provided several great examples of why the situation is very different, including many examples of things that are not "bad" but Apple could not want on the store. Like Tor. And FireFox. All of which you ignored. I also showed examples of how it doesn't have to be a free-for-all that everyone must be subjected to, and that there are other ways to do it. Also ignored. I addressed the main substance of your argument, while still finding it hilarious that the best analogy you could come up with was an "abstract version of the purge".
Listen, I am honestly glad that the circumstances in your life are such that Apple's decisions may not have a meaningful impact on your ability to escape censorship or fight for your right to be heard, but I hope someday you'll understand that these real scenarios that have actually taken place matter as much as your hypothetical worst-case scenarios that involve Apple implementing a slightly different system in the most un-Apply way, as opposed to the way they've done so with tremendous success on their other platform.
I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. Similarly, I don't accept arguments against socialism because of the trainwrecks from the past that have claimed to be socialist.
And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming.
Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem like you did at the end of your post. You have no idea who I am or my life experience, and even if you did, it's still not a valid argument regardless of my circumstances. Try to be less sanctimonious.
> I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them.
If the consequences of the decisions a company makes aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the world than many countries do, and you want to take "outcomes" off the table for argument?
> I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights.
Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth.
> And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming.
I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good review.
*> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem [...] Try to be less sanctimonious."
Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.
> Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth.
You were correct, and you seem to know much more about history than I do. All I can do is learn, but again, we aren't here to talk about the timeline of the HK protests. You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say.
> I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it
I read a lot of it but after the third time seeing you mention a detail I'd already told you wasn't relevant, yeah, I stopped trying so hard.
Hopefully you trust me when I say I've read everything else you've written, not sure how you think I could keep replying to your quotes otherwise.
> Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement
Not the same thing as what you were trying to do at all. You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I merely pointed out that you were letting your emotions run away with your arguments... indeed, you did talk by my point, multiple times.
> You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say.
> You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments.
I guess I didn't think it was much of a stretch to assume that someone who conveys the position of "sure, people fighting for their freedoms and journalists evading censorship are valid points -- BUT, that's not the whole picture, remember how bad Windows was?" is unlikely to have had to face these issues. For the record, that wouldn't make you bad, I haven't had to face these issues either. And you're right, for all I know it may very well be the case that you're typing this from a laptop in the desert fighting for water rights or something, but still open minded enough to be just as concerned about the practical business desires of Apple's AppStore. I simply think your post repeatedly skipping the points about Tor gave off a sense of irreverence with regard to them, arguably just as insulting as assuming you haven't had to deal with them. I'm sure you can understand any frustration that might generate, considering you've now admitted you may have not read them.
That being said, I don't think an outsider reading my post would think it is really all that "emotional". Passionate perhaps. Either way, I think you mentioned that that wasn't what we were arguing about. I guess I don't know where the demarcation lines of what we're arguing about are. I'm simply arguing about the effects of the AppStore, and what I believe would be the benefits of other alternatives, to Apple, customers, and yes, the world. As you yourself said, "the whole picture." I began this thread by stating that pricing was not the real problem, so I think I certainly hinted as much. My only hope is that our conversation has perhaps introduced you to concerns about the AppStore beyond the IMO tired discussion of whether 30% is or isn't too high, which is the unfortunate form that this argument usually takes, since it is usually presented as "Apple's interests" vs. "3rd party developers' interests," but that I think is ultimately just a small part of the conversation.
The most ridiculous thing is it's a 30% cut on all in-app purchases and not allowing an alternative payment provider.
For in-app purchases the service is ONLY a payment service and nothing more.
Industry standard cuts for payment providers are lessen then 5%, often much less like e.g. 1.5%.
So IMHO this is basically extortion.
For app purchases it's still an absurd cut as nearly all "costs" apple has per app are fixed. The cost which are not are super small.
Furthermore most other "running" costs are more associated with the user then the app. (E.g. Os
dev cost).
And if you now want to argue with "but they provide a messaging service" and similar don't forget that they effectively prevented any 3rd party message services (btw. google did so too). So we can't even say if it's
a grate service, we have no realistic comparison as any was already killed at he roots before it could came to be.
Just imagine Microsoft effectively ("de-facto") preventing you from using any mail service but Outlock and also forces any "notifications messages" through Outlock and also prevents applications from using polling effectively so that you have to use interlock any messenger, chat app, and similar with Outlock or it won't work properly.
This would be ridiculous, but that is basically what Google and Apple did on smartphones.
So yeah, basically Apple de-facto forces you to use a set of services you might not want to use while taking extortion level cuts for what is basically a payment service (which is also forced onto you) and reasoning that "they need to do so because all the nice services they provide for free".
Forget about 30%! What about 100$ each year for the right to properly run your own application on your own iphone/ipad if you want it to work offline longer than a week? Or am I missing something?
It's honestly about the same, cost wise. $100 for Apple, I've seen as low as $170 for Windows. If anything, Apple is worse because I require an Apple device to sign, though you can work around that with hosted CI.
Apple actually arbitrarily adjusts the price for non-US regions. For some reason they want twice as much from me here.
Especially since Apple hosts free apps that support themselves only through other means (e.g. ads). Thus, even a 100% fee would do nothing to cover App Store costs in those cases.
Worse, a lot of these “free” apps are made by huge companies like Facebook that really could afford to pay the huge sums it must cost to enable their apps.
People like to focus on the percentage fee while conveniently not mentioning a lot of other things that matter:
- Every developer that isn’t a huge company offering apps “for free” is subsidizing the cost of App Store upkeep for those big companies that do not lose any 30% fees.
- Apple basically won’t pay you for months unless you’ve passed a certain threshold. Thus, Apple “makes money” by being able to hold onto your money interest-free for awhile, multiplied by all the apps that are not making a lot of money.
- Every developer of any size must pay $100 PER YEAR so “free apps” always make Apple money anyway. This fee does not go away even if you haven’t been paid by Apple in awhile.
- Despite $100 per year, developers can be mistreated by Apple (e.g. review time delays, bogus rejections, bugs left unfixed in developer tools). Yet it is abundantly clear that Apple does not treat developers equally.
> Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ?
...
> It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the same in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me. Their current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for services and infrastructure usage, it's setup like a tax.
I'm curious if you've ever made the same argument for credit cards, debit cards and the like. All of them charge a percentage to the seller too (and many a times it's a fixed fee plus a percentage).
I do believe that 30% is quite high for Apple's poorer management of the App Store with respect to scams and other aspects (see the lawsuit against Apple by the developer of FlickType, Kosta Eleftheriou). And it's not just the 30% or 15% alone that the developer bears, but also the annual $99 developer program membership fee.
I did, the EU did, and as a result their fees got massively regulated in the EU, below 0.5% ; on top of other reasons why this comparison is not fair and equal as discussed in many comments below (no market monopoly associated, and percentage actually matching the costs and expanses of those card issuers to their own providers [banks] as opposed to apple's fee being disconnected from the reality of the underlying costs).
The EU regulated the Intercharge fees of credit/debit cards, but not the total fees that a Payment Service Provider can charge a merchant. Those can still be 3-4% or so.
This isn't remotely equivalent or comparable. First, you're free to choose other forms of payment. Visa isn't holding a gun to your head. I know many sellers simply adjust their prices if you're paying credit -- see almost every gas station in the US. You can't do that with Apple.
Second, the fees actually benefit the customer. They're there to protect the customer from fraud, and to provide perks. I have no idea how I benefit from Apple's fees. Seriously.
Comically, I think Apple should adapt Epic's model for unreal: free for the first $1MM of revenue, only then they start to take a cut.
> First, you're free to choose other forms of payment. Visa isn't holding a gun to your head.
And you're free to choose another phone vendor. Apple isn't holding a gun to your head.
> I know many sellers simply adjust their prices if you're paying credit -- see almost every gas station in the US. You can't do that with Apple.
You can't do that with PayPal, either.
> I have no idea how I benefit from Apple's fees. Seriously.
The host the AppStore for you; allow you to search, access and download all apps and provide an infrastructure for updates and payment. Plus, they're doing basic fraud checking [0] and check that apps adhere to a basic quality and usability standard.
It's a very different topic whether the 30% cut is too much, but its not like Apple does not provide anything in return.
[0] Other comments pointed out that they failed quite badly in a case, but there's a difference between bad service and no service.
> And you're free to choose another phone vendor. Apple isn't holding a gun to your head.
You're "free" to choose one side of the same coin, because Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app distribution market. They both abuse that market dominance to prevent competition in the mobile app distribution market from offering consumers better, more efficient and cheaper options.
Google prevents mobile app distribution competitors from competing with the Play Store on feature parity because user installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
And you're free to use another ISP or start digging your own Fibre cables. The duopoly has extreme power over our lines and the impact is just like with utilities.
Technically not really true, it's based on a complex system where if your run rate ever exceeds $1m (even temporarily) you get bumped into the 30% bracket for this year and the next year, even if your revenue next year is 100k. (I'm still confused that they decided to make the system that complicated, it can't increase their profits THAT much.)
This system coincidentally punishes non-subscription products like non-IAP games, where your "launch" produces a big revenue spike and then you have a much smaller long tail of revenue. To avoid getting punished by this, you'd have to optimize for a lower-revenue launch and more stable long-term revenue... i.e. a subscription.
> I'm curious if you've ever made the same argument for credit cards, debit cards and the like. All of them charge a percentage to the seller too (and many a times it's a fixed fee plus a percentage).
I always thought debit was a fixed fee. I just looked up one of the most common processors in Canada and it says the max fee is $0.035 going as low as $0.02 if you fall into a market segment that skews towards less than $20 per transaction.
I intentionally pay debit for everything and keep a low fee, low interest credit card with no perks.
Non-credit rails are region specific and usually avoid higher fees typical of credit card rails (often even free).
The processor fees for credit card rails exist primarily nowadays to support two things: fraud and perks.
With a debit transaction, your fraud protection is usually much, much lower (often non-existent). It's usually equivalent to handing over cash. With a credit card, you can call them up and get the transaction reversed pretty trivially.
There's no monopoly on credit cards though. There's multiple providers, some countries have their own (cheaper) debit card networks, and you can still pay with cash.
For some reason a flat fee hadn't even crossed my mind, but that makes a lot of sense. The cost of an application doesn't change the distribution costs at all.
There’s fixed components to the cost as well as variable ones. Storage/CDN distribution is relatively fixed. I would say so is access to developer tools and APIs. What’s variable are services that an app may take advantage of, such as push notifications, geolocation queries, iCloud access, and App Store approvals. More established companies tend to release new versions on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.
> What’s variable are services that an app may take advantage of, such as push notifications, geolocation queries, iCloud access, and App Store approvals.
Cool, so let competition roll out implementations of these services, and developers can decide on their own if its worth using Apple's services or their competitors.
Consumers will be able to reap the benefits of increased competition, as the free market delivers to them better, cheaper and more efficient solutions.
Because they're looking down the barrel of antitrust suits.
> Is it not morally important that they consent?
Is it morally important that they consent to following the law? No, it isn't. Antitrust laws are very clear, and if a company violates them, then they'll face penalties and prosecution.
I think my local warlords are trying to take something someone else made, because they want to feel big, and are happy leave destruction in their wake.
Developers will always choose the cheapest option. Someone will make a “free backup just watch this 30s ad” and people would use that instead of iCloud.
You fetishize competition. I want apple to be allowed to be anti competitive on their own platform. Just like I want to go to Disneyworld and not having to choose between competing companies’ versions of Space Mountain.
The rest of the world outside the walled garden is a competitive market. Once inside the walled garden, we have paid handsomely not to be competed for.
Agreed, though the same could be argued for credit card payment processors like Visa and Mastercard taking a 2-2.5% cut of every transaction.
Shouldn't they also just be regulated to only accept a fixed amount instead? I'm genuinely curious why this example isn't brought up more often and is just assumed to be the norm.
The irony in this % discussion is that Apple tried to use the same rationale against Qualcomm in their radio modem feud - Qualcomm wanted to charge a % on device price for using their radio modems whereas Apple pushed for a fixed amount. I'm sure AWS would love to bill % of revenue but perhaps due to competition, they can't do that.
Vast oversimplification: it's because of chargebacks and fraud. It works kind of like an insurance, someone needs to take the loss at some point and fixed amount doesn't work for that (or would massively hike the fees for cheap sales).
That's why when EU capped the fee "so low" we also massively pushed for 3D secure deployment, so those lower fees would still easily cover it.
Interesting. But aren't the banks responsible for handling chargebacks and fraud, not the credit card processing companies?
My (albeit limited) understanding is that Visa and Mastercard ensure that the debit/credit transactions are securely and quickly occur, but if there are post-transaction issues like fraud or chargeback, then the credit card-issuing bank handles/resolves those issues.
Conversely there's probably a subset of transactions that don't need this sort of "insurance", such as buying groceries. Currently the merchant still has to pay the 2%+ fee in the U.S. but would be nice to have the option for a customer to waive the "insurance" part and benefit from a 2% savings. It's akin to many merchants offering a lower "cash-only" rate.
> My (albeit limited) understanding is that Visa and Mastercard ensure that the debit/credit transactions are securely and quickly occur,
Now in the EU, if online transactions are over a certain amount or flag up as suspicious, we must use 2FA. So I have to stick my card in my card reader and generate an OTP. Works quite well tbh. My other bank sends me a push notification where I approve the payment.
I understand why you don't want to use credit cards too often, but you wrote "we've moved too far [...]". Why do you care whether other people use credit cards?
My bank or creditors don't need to know where I'm shopping or what I'm buying, and they certainly don't need to be selling that information to the highest bidders.
The services credit card companies provide was just pushed a layer deeper to the issuing banks. The EU didn’t magically make the costs of running a payment system disappear, it’s just sleight of hand. They also pushed costs onto consumers in the form of assumed risk consumers take on when making a purchase (thus all the 2fa etc to reduce this burden).
Oh and it goes without saying that rewards programs disappeared entirely (I am not opposed to outlawing “rewards” programs)
I think the abolition of percentage fees needs to happen across a bunch of industries. Property, recruitment, certain aspects of finance (e.g. money transfer).
It's really really annoying, and it feels like people put up with it because "that's how it's always been done".
Functional pricing i.e. pricing according to what it is worth to the buyer is an indicator for a monopoly. This was one of the arguments that were used to go after IBM way back so there long standing precedence.
The most ridiculous example of this is Tesla's offering of in-app Autopilot upgrades. At $10k, imagine what Apple's cut is, for absolutely no value added.
It's because Apple's actual costs are pretty much fixed (storage, bandwidth, ...) so clearly on a low price / many customer scenario it seems fairer.
That's why a per usage pricing would be fairer. And yes, the app having one thousand $10 purchases would pay way more than the app having a single $10000 purchase, but that's the point.
But for Spotify or other apps that sell content Apple is not providing storage, bandwidth, or anything else. They do provide payment processing, but it's common for that to be a small percentage of purchase price already (e.g. ~1-2% for credit cards).
Buying a physical good or an upgrade to a physical good isn’t an “in-app” purchase. I don’t think Apple is taking a cut here — it’s probably just Apple Pay.
I think you don’t understand what you’re talking about. If I buy a kiddie pool from the Shopify app with Apple Pay, it is not subject to the App Store in-app purchase terms. Similarly, if I book a massage through Yelp and it supported Apple Pay, there would be no App Store fee. Apple’s cut is for digital goods whose consumption is facilitated through your app.
In app purchases from the Apple store are subject to the cut to Apple. Apple pay is separate and though the consumer does not pay the transaction cost (Like VISA/etc), Apple is still taking a cut.
> Apple currently takes a 30% commission from the total price of paid apps and in-app purchases from the App Store. For some small app makers, the new policy could cut the amount that they pay Apple in half.
Apple does not take a cut of this. It's charged to your existing payment method on file. It's closer to a physical good, since it's an enhancement for an actual physical good.
Some of the big loot box mobile games in fact use this model to pull in more revenue - they sell soundtracks or other goods at marked-up prices that happen to include in-game bonuses you'd otherwise be giving Apple 30% for.
But is the work of the app store flat fee for an app? I think if you have a massive userbase and drop an update etc. this requires way more of Apple's resources to keep up with, it should probably be a sliding scale right?
I don't understand your point. If you're serving a file from AWS to ten people or to a massive userbase what happens ? Does AWS pricing change once you have a certain amount of traffic ? No, you pay per GB delivered. Apple should offer that kind of pricing, or a price per user (download) if they want.
And Apple should also be free to offer the % as an alternative if they wish, "don't want to bother with details ? Just stay entirely within Apple's system and pay 30% and that's it". But not strip the possibility of paying by use.
Because again, if I have 500 millions users, delivering a 5 MB update costs the same for a 5$ sub as it does for a 50$ sub, yet Apple's bills 10 times more to the second one.
Note however that payment processors are actually charging in proportion to their costs, because one of their major costs is fraud for which the cost (if it occurs) is proportional to the amount of the charge.
Advertisements in apps is a way to circumvent the app store fee currently, yes. That is bad, it means that ads pay close 50% more compared to selling apps compared to what they should, meaning Apples policy likely massively increased the number of ad based apps compared to purchasable apps. Forcing them to pay their fair share makes sense for everyone.
Nobody stops Apple from offering an alternative "if your app is 100% free then there are no fees for you at all", beside the 100$/year they already have to pay.
You're now talking about things (software) that cause Apple to incur no marginal cost. It's not unreasonable at that point to expect that they choose between allowing you to decline the charge for them and do without or provide those things for free.
Why would the amount of work change depending on the size of the userbase? Isn't it more a function of the complexity and maybe the purpose of the application? Even if it did then the current model makes no sense since they don't charge free apps with huge userbases anything at all!
Technically, AWS doesn't bill on percentage but they do bill on how long something is being used and how much data is run through whatever you're using, plus a number of other charges.
I agree that it's like a tax. The fact that, like taxes, there's no way to get around it is IMO the damaging part. You have to use their payment infrastructure: rolling out your own or using a competing one is out of the question.
Likewise with delivery driver tips. Why is it a percentage of the order instead of a flat fee/tip? (Get rid of tips and pay fairly, seriously).
The driver doesn't know what's in the box. They don't need to know what's in the box. At most it should be based on the size or weight of the box but not what's in it.
What's next, tipping hotel bellhops based on the value of items in your luggage? Got a $5000 camera in there? Oh yeah that'll be a 1% or $50 tip. Oh, it's just $100 of clothes? I guess it'll be $1.
The 30% cut is fine - VISA charges a % and so do many other businesses.
It's the 'market power / monopoly' issue that is the problem.
Apple needs to allow 3rd part app stores and direct downloads and that's it.
They can keep their 15%/30% if they think the market will allow that.
The 'security' issue is a canard because the Android world is not effectively less secure. Moreover, Apple could still make certain security/notarization requirements, strictly technical.
Too many people are weirdly supportive of their control - it's totally fine and frankly understandable if you want to 'just use the App Store' - but it's not good to limit others.
Vertical consolidation within industries is usually a bad thing, not always, but it's definitely bad when these power/monopolies are created.
On the other side of the equation, Apple has a 'Monopsony' in other areas as well (exclusive buyer by force) which can be looked at.
The M1 chip, design, great apps - compete there, but indirect downloads, 'self repair', probably battery/disk/memory upgrade replacement etc. should be open.
AWS bills their services on usage. If AWS ever offered billing as a service (ala Stripe) they would most definitely charge you a % of the transaction amount, along with a flat rate per transaction.
Apple doesn't charge developers 30% of revenue; they charge 30% of revenue made from purchasing from the app store, and in-app purchases.
Your argument applies equally well to payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, etc.) and, as a society, we seem to be okay with them just taking ~2% of Revenue despite their underlying costs (largely) being a flat fee.
I'm not saying it's okay, simply that there's precedent fairly ingrained in our economy.
But that's not a 1:1 comparison because you are not forced to use them, you're free to go to another one, or not take them and use checks or cash or bitcoin or whatever you want.
If Apple was not making it mandatory to go through them, it would be another story from my point of view.
Note that payment processor fees are massively regulated in the EU as well, with very low limits. So by that precedent the EU coming and saying "30% is way too much" wouldn't be out of nowhere.
So you have to pay your Spotify subscription by cash or checks. How many people will still subscribe to Spotify? I haven‘t ever seen a check in my live besides in TV.
In some sense you are „forced“ to use them. And in some sense it is ok, as long as one party does not has to much power.
FYI: Apple disallow you to redirect your users to subscribe outside of their app without their fee. You cannot tell your users "go to our website to subscribe by check for 30% less", that gets you banned. So yes, you are forced to use them.
> 3.1.1 In-App Purchase: If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
Also, I don't know how common it is in the US but in the EU and here in France we have "prélèvement" (~bank direct debit ?)
Eg I (virtually, on my computer) sign an agreement for company X to take amount Y from my bank account every Z amount of time for a given service. It takes less than a minute to setup and sign directly on the provider website (no need to contact or connect to my bank).
I can cancel it at any time through the provider or at my bank.
Since a couple of years they are valid in the entire EU accross countries "prélèvement SEPA" (Single Euro Payments Area).
They're entirely free, for the customer AND the one billing them (there are bank fees depending on your bank, but no interchange fee, eg I use them to charge many of my customer and it costs me a flat fee of 25e/month for the web access).
That's how I pay my amazon prime, my amazon purchases, my electricity bill, my mobile phone bill, ... So a certain swedish music company could bill me in france that way for virtually no fee.
I paid for Spotify directly with a credit card on their website and then logged into my existing account inside the app. So, by definition, I wasn't forced to subscribe through Apple.
It's true that you're not allowed to advertise that you can do this inside the app itself, but that's not the same as saying you're not allowed to do it at all.
Paypal also support the SEPA bank direct debit I mentionned above as a source of funds, meaning you don't even have to initiate a bank transfer they do it for you and it's instant. Bank account -> paypal -> spotify, in one or two clicks and no waiting time.
There's a fairly big difference between a duopoly, which, for the record, major government services rely on (if you want the COVID tracking app its either iOS or Android, if you want an app that your senator will use, you probably have to make it for iOS, etc.), and services that you can actually wholesale replace in your product like a payment processor. Not to mention certain school courses that are taught with iOS, etc. Apple has worked very hard to position themselves as one of the only players in the space, and they've succeeded! There is certainly an argument that the duopoly situation is fine, but it is in absolutely no way the "exact same" as with Apple and the AppStore.
Consoles are also effectively a duopoly, and yet Microsoft has argued that they should be allowed to keep third-party app stores off the Xbox while also signing on to the lawsuit to try and force Apple to open up their own.
I feel like you stopped reading my comment as soon as you hit the word "duopoly". Look at the specific reasons I gave why phone AppStores are different: they are increasingly necessary for everyday life. COVID-tracking, political interaction, school courses, paying for parking, etc. etc. The day XBox becomes one of the few ways to do these things, and not primarily a means to play video games, then it would be appropriate for the calculus to change there too. You can bring up Keurig coffee cups too, but the implications just aren't the same.
ios isn't a monopoly, there is always the other option. The option that has six times the marketshare.
again, this is literally about shutting down any possibility of a company ever offering a "walled garden" model. It's not that apple is dominant in the market - they're not. You have many many alternatives to using their devices, they're about an eighth of the market. But even that eighth cannot be allowed to exist, that business model has to be shut down permanently.
That will be a crucial point of the ruling to come yes, as the full version is "You're not forced to use them to sell on the market", and it depends on what you define as "the market".
If you consider selling apps to ios devices to be its own market, then yes you are forced to use Apple. If you don't consider that to be its own market but only a part of the actual "phones and tablets apps" market then no you are not forced to use Apple.
I believe because of the size of their userbase that apps for ios devices are a market on their own, therefore "you are forced to use Apple" applies. Here the EU seems to agree.
Yep, its great because I never feel bad about paying for tiny things by card. I remember how before this regulation the card companies were extracting so much profit (with a minimum fee) that it was often expensive for a convenience store to accept cards. Some had lower bounds of what you could pay by card, to keep the fees at a manageable level. Now it's not a problem, contactless payments are everywhere and for everything due to slim fees. The only downside is that credit card rewards are modest compared to the US
Wouldn’t it be nice if banks charged a fixed fee for a loan no matter the size? Visa/MasterCard/etc are not comparable here because they are financing transactions which do have percentage based mechanisms such as % of fraud or % charged back.
The cost to the issuer is proportional to the size of the purchase in the case of credit default or fraud. So a fixed fee does not make sense for loans. This isn't the case for the App Store.
BTW, Visa/MasterCard don't manage risk afaik -- the card issuing banks do that. Visa just connects the pos terminal etc to the right bank.
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm responding to someone who said that we as a society have accepted % of revenue based charging BECAUSE Visa et al. have models like that. I'm pointing it out that they have % of revenue models because their costs are directly tied to revenue. I'm not even going to get into cash back and points and international transactions which are one-to-one relationships with how much is being charged, but do you really think the banks pay for the privilege of being part of Visa? No, Visa has costs at least somewhat proportional to the volume going through that bank.
Banks and loan are not a good comparison since you ll most likely understand a million euros loan will be harder to produce for the bank than a 1000 one. Taking a percent is fine.
Tbh it would be fine if Apple charged per bandwidth usage. But taking 50 or 500 euros in wont change how much it cost them to deliver the app.
That was entirely my point. I was responding to a comment that says we have precedent in accepting % revenue models because Visa has one. I'm pointing out to them that in finance, percentage of dollar amount is normal and orthogonal to the App Store model.
It does stack up, but if the cost was too high, many businesses wouldn't work with the credit processors. Amex is an example of this. There's payment options that avoid this retailers could incentivize.
And Apple and Google charge 15 times that because there's no way around them.
Abstractly AWS sort of _do_ charge you a % of your revenue. For the resources you consume from AWS for $C, those resources should be generating a revenue for you of $R, if $R<$C then you're making a loss from those resources. If you're making a profit, AWS takes a cut in line-step with how much resource you use (and therefore how much profit you make).
This assumes that as your needs increase, your profit increases and so does your AWS bill. Granular, PAYG billing is really just a tax on what you _should_ be converting to profit in some sense.
At least, it's an interesting way to look at capital allocation and ROI.
By your metric anything you pay is a % of your revenue, I think you understand what I meant in the context I meant it.
Imagine a scenario where you realize you can double your prices without changing anything else nor losing customer, therefore only changing your revenue by doubling it. Your AWS bill doesn't change. Your Apple store bill doubles. This is factually a tax on revenue.
I did understand you, and wasn't disagreeing. Just offering up a comparison as someone currently doing AWS price projections based on unit costs / CLV and seeing a fairly even margin on AWS resource usage vs revenue-per-resource. Cost plus and all that.
It struck me at the time, that the granular billing allows AWS to function less like a product seller and more like a tax.
>It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway.
And the same Apple sued Qualcomm for charging them percentage of iPhone.
Although I do think the percentage is a good way to ensure fair distribution ( with a Cap on maximum ). The idea is that the higher grossing Apps ( or Phones ) would be subsidising the lower cost Apps ( or Phones ) for those innovation.
And again, I still think the money part is besides the point. Why do Apple gets to pull an App down simply because they dont like their world views.
You could make the argument that features like Touch ID and Face ID were significant R&D investments by Apple with the benefits accruing to the companies with the most in-app purchases via lowering purchasing friction. Therefore, those apps should face a higher cost burden. Another way Apple could do it though is charge for each API interaction. For instance, each time a user accessed their camera through an app, it would cost the developer X cents. New features could have more expensive API's and older features perhaps would be free for developers.
The issue here is that Spotify can easily pay 10k for being listed despite making billions. Meanwhile anyone making freeware, open source or small apps and just trying to get started is fucked.
Not an issue, already solved in many market: offering the normal pricing doesn't stop the provider (here Apple) to offer other special terms to those who want them.
Example in another market: you can buy an Unreal Engine license, or you can get it for pretty much free but then owe a % of sales.
Nobody is saying Apple cannot offer an alternative "30% all included flat price", the complaint is about them offering ONLY that.
The issue is that if Apple lose a tonne of money when Spotify decides to go flat fee, someone has to make up that difference. So smaller Devs lose out as they're currently being subsidised...
Free apps maybe, but then again the "all free" is a myth since there are costs to pay by someone, and Apple is free to keep subsidizing them if they so desire (because an entirely free app is good for their customers).
But non free apps with a smaller base you would be surprised I guess. Storage for hosting and GB for bandwidth is incredibly cheap.
To give a frame of reference AWS pricing is currently at $0.023 per GB for storage and $0.09 per GB for bandwith out.
That means 30% of a $0.50 sub is enough for covering the entire storage + distribution costs of one gigabyte for that user (and that's assuming you need to store an entire copy for each user, which you don't). Yes, there are other costs (website, review, ...), but then again how many subs are $0.50 ?
But what if you're selling content that you aren't making more than 30% profit on? There's flaws for both flat and percent. Something more nuanced might be required.
My point here is that the percentage is based off the price you're selling at, not the amount you're making. So someone who makes a profit of $0.50 off a $1 sale keeps more after Apple's cut than someone who makes a $0.50 profit off a $3 sale.
~This is a really bad idea in my opinion because the total cost of operating the App Store would be equally distributed amongst all apps, which hurts small developers and benefits big corporations disproportionately. An app like Facebook, which is downloaded billions of times, does cost Apple significantly more than a small indie app used by, say, thousands. You can't get around that. Having the small indie app paying for Facebook (indirectly) is a lot worse than the current system. Worse, Apple is unlikely to decrease its profit margin. This would mean small developers and big corps pay an equal share in the profits Apple is going to make.~
~A better idea would be to have a free tier and take a percentage above that. The first $1000 are a lot more valuable to the creator than everything beyond that.~
edit: OP said per download, misread it. That makes sense.
> the total cost of operating the App Store would be equally distributed amongst all apps
No it would not, it would be distributed by usage. If you wonder "would that possibly work ?", welcome to the internet, it works that way.
And it doesn't stop apple from offering special terms you can opt in for a flat 30% fee or entirely free if your app is entirely free (or ad supported) too.
This is a strange take considering Facebook is distributed for free in the App Store with the current model. Apps paying the 30% tax _already_ subsidize Facebook’s distribution.
Facebook is completely ad-supported. I guess the hole in Apple's revenue model is that they don't charge 30% of ad sales (of course I think this demonstrates how absurd the whole idea of charging a % of subscription revenue is.)
This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not.
Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!!
Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).
Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee.
What EU seems to argue is this:
1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good...
2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different area (music), which is a textbook violation.
Right, the percentage of Apple's cut isn't the key part of this EU case.
Certainly doesn't help that it's the current 30% but it being 15% won't change the fundamental issues being argued - whether Apple is abusing its market power and shutting competitors out of or subjecting them to unfair practices in its iOS ecosystem. E.g. unfairly favoring its own Music app.
I think it's a fairly straightforward case similar to Microsoft's antitrust case for bundling the Internet Explorer in its Windows OS a couple of decades ago. The argument then was that Microsoft favored its own browser and crowded out viable competitors like Netscape. If anything, the case is more obvious here since you can't even install any other music streaming alternatives on your iPhone if it's not in the App Store - in Windows you could download and install another browser (even if most users didn't).
The main difference with Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly in phones like Microsoft had with PCs. Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.
Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[1]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
--
> Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.
Depends on how one defines "monopoly". Back in the late 1990s, one could theoretically install non-Windows OSes like Linux, Unix or even purchase an Apple Mac. But yes, in practice Microsoft commanded the market and abused its market power.
You could argue that users technically have a choice to switch to Android but due to network effect (e.g. your family/friends all use iOS) and lock-in features like iMessage and Facetime, it's often a false choice.
Every time App/Play store fees are discussed, it devolves into unproductive hair-splitting over the word monopoly. The proper term is captive market.
> Captive markets are markets where the potential consumers face a severely limited number of competitive suppliers; their only choices are to purchase what is available or to make no purchase at all
Original article didn’t make that case, or present this side of the EU’s argument.
If that were the EU Commission’s line of thought, it would be wrong on the basis of its presuppositions alone by trying to categorize these two companies into what businesses they are in and screwing up the timeline.
Apple has been in the music business longer than the iPhone has existed, even in prototype form, and longer than Spotify or Beats Electronics existed (whose Beats Music service is the direct predecessor of the subscription component of Apple Music).
As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant, whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is. Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true. But speaking from a legal EU point of view, especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only, wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay the same fees as Spotify? Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be possible there?
> As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant
You want to go back and re-read the comment I directly replied to where bullet point 1 was the EU (hypothetically at this point) making determinations about who was in what market and laid the foundations for bullet point 2 based on its own flawed presupposition and then tell me that the timeline is irrelevant?
I didn’t point this out to make an argument against the claims that Apple has any sort of claim to monopoly status (or that the EU has any basis for making that claim), but that any legal argument at all made on that foundation would crumble because bad facts make bad law.
> whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly at any stage is.
Except Apple does not have market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in Music or Phones.
> Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true.
Not having market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in phones, software, or software retail and distribution, that is actually not true.
They have a monopoly on iPhone features, including the App Store, insofar as the iPhone is researched, developed and sold by Apple as a cohesive product, and it does not have out of the box functionality that Apple does not add themselves. You might as well claim Google has a monopoly on YouTube channels or that Amazon has a monopoly on Whole Foods shelves; more accurately, that Nintendo has a monopoly on the eShop and Sony has a monopoly on the PlayStation Store. It was a bad argument 13 years ago, and it is a bad argument today that doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
> especially as the EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only
Why only streaming music? Spotify was originally an upstart competitor to iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, and the iTunes Music Store was originally a competitor to record stores.
Music itself is part of the larger News and Entertainment industry where ultimately the resource is someone else’s leisure time and you want to be the one to fill it. Spotify knows this; that’s why they experimented with video and they’re huge into podcasts now.
> wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay the same fees as Spotify?
Why should they have to? Because they have a competitive advantage? Businesses always look to edge out their competitors by accumulating advantages. Spotify was successfully out-competing iTunes, so Apple acquired Beats and folded Beats Music into iTunes and called it Apple Music.
Spotify has almost 5 times the global market share of streaming music as Apple does, and has almost as many EU subscribers as Apple has total subscribers, that is globally, give or take 10 million.
What Spotify is doing here is trying to lower their costs because they have massive overhead in licensing fees, same as everyone else that licenses music. Part of their growth story is exactly being on the iPhone at the right time to capitalize on its growth, and being featured in the App Store. In order to compete, they offer an ad-supported tier from which Apple sees exactly none of that money. I don’t think you can even subscribe to Spotify from within the iPhone app anymore so Apple is still footing the bill for distribution and any money that Apple sees from prior subscriptions is now at the lower 15% rate that all subscription apps see for customers after their first year subscribed.
> Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be possible there?
I don’t know how to parse this. Clarify and I’ll get back to you.
> You might as well claim Google has a monopoly on YouTube channels or that Amazon has a monopoly on Whole Foods shelves; more accurately, that Nintendo has a monopoly on the eShop and Sony has a monopoly on the PlayStation Store. It was a bad argument 13 years ago, and it is a bad argument today that doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
Antitrust law focuses on the restraints of trade. Companies that are minor players in the market have been successfully pursued for antitrust violations, because it does not require a monopoly, or even market dominance. Monopoly law was the origin of antitrust law, but today is merely a subset of it. (For example, bid rigging, market allocation, and price fixing are all antitrust violations.)
Antitrust generally requires a substantial market position, and the use of that market position in one of a number of enumerated anti-competitive manners (the list differs between the U.S. and E.U.). One antitrust violation both the U.S. and E.U. have is the abuse of market position in one market (i.e., mobile devices) to anti-competitively establish market position in a different market (i.e., streaming music).
Apple has approximately 1/3 of the EU market for smartphones, which is a substantial enough market position for a single market position that antitrust concerns come into play. (Legally, the comparison is not Apple vs Android; it's Apple vs Samsung, LG, Huawei, etc.) Note that Samsung, etc., would have similar antitrust concerns if they tried to launch their own streaming music services in the same fashion as Apple did.
Note that if Apple had required an industry-standard fee for processing iOS subscription payments (generally, 2% or less depending on territory), or didn't require Spotify to use iPay, then there wouldn't have been any antitrust issues.
I think it's interesting that Microsoft got into hot water in 2001 for (among other things) including Internet Explorer in Windows, thereby abusing its dominant position in the OS market to dominate the browser market.
Microsoft very sensibly argued that including (and indeed integrating) a web browser was a logical evolution of the modern operating system.
In 2021, Apple (Safari/iOS/macOS) and Google (Chrome/Android/ChromeOS) would presumably agree with Microsoft's position. Mozilla might take issue.
I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft hadn't been dissuaded (somewhat at least) from completely integrating Windows and IE in the early 2000s. Perhaps Windows would be a lot closer to ChromeOS. And I wonder if Microsoft would have been more competitive with Google, Apple, and other companies if they hadn't been the target of antitrust action.
> Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%.
I think this does not account for the opportunity cost. If Apple Music competes with Spotify, then Apple Music implicitly pays the 30% fee of the next best alternative. If Spotify operates at a loss with the fee, and Apple Music is otherwise an identical business, then Apple should prefer Spotify - it makes more money this way. The fee is basically irrelevant.
That ignores the 'operate at a loss to kill competition then jack up prices/lower quality' strategy that the EU is directly trying to fight here. It's a common trope; Monopolies are great for the consumer; until they aren't held accountable.
That’s good for internal bookkeeping but it’s not enough to prevent the unfair advantage.
Take this example: Apple Music “pays” 30% to parent Apple Corp. That 30% payment cuts into Music’s revenue and now they’re operating at a 25% loss.
However, that rough calculation still allows parent Apple Corp to consider Music to be profitable, since it’s a net profit for Apple Corp. It’s happy to take the 25% “loss” in the music division because it’s just a paper loss. In cash terms, the Music division increases Apple Corps profit.
The only real way for this division to be fair is to spin Apple Music off into its own company that is not owned by Apple Corp.
I don't think you considered the loss of the 30% from each apple music customer's previous subscription to a competitor. There's no unfair advantage, the maximum profit apple can make by switching a customer away from spotify is spotify's profit.
It's known that music licensing costs are about 50% of gross subscription prices. So a subscription to spotify is about 50% to rightsholders, 30% to apple, and 20% to spotify as their profit. A subscription to Apple music is 50% to rightsholders, and 50% to apple. The additional profit Apple makes from converting a Spotify customer is only 20% (50%-30%), the same profit that any other competitor to Spotify (such as Tidal) would make on a conversion.
Now, Apple could afford to lower their subscription costs to below Spotify's, selling below "cost" at say 75% rate. So they are still "making money" per subscription, but at a price which is unsustainable to Spotify, which seems at first glance unfair and is what I think the comment chain is picturing. But what's happening here is that Apple as a whole is actually making less money on an Apple Music customer (25% margin) than a Spotify customer (30% margin), so it's not profitable or a good business decision versus the alternative. And we don't see apple doing that, at least where I live both subscriptions are the same price. It only works if you are able to drive Spotify out of business, then jack up the prices, but that anticompetitive opportunity to "dump" is possible for Apple in essentially any market due to their vast vast cash reserves.
In my view the potentially anti-trust advantages Apple has over Spotify mainly come from the fact Apple Music is preinstalled and is promoted to iOS users through push notifications.
Disagree. If Apple only had their Music app, they wouldn’t have to maintain the whole ecosystem that comes along with the app store that allows Spotify to exist as an iOS app. Maintaining that system is where the 30% goes. Would anyone then say Apple had an unfair advantage as to who could have a streaming platform on iOS?
Spotify would be free then and are now to make a web based player like youtube or soundcloud.
Strange how Spotify managed to create and distribute their app entirely without Apple's "help" on macOS, but would somehow be incapable of doing the same on iOS.
What if spotify can get 1 customer at $1, but apple can get 2 customers at $0.7, to get $1.4.
Alternatively, if for some reason there's just a single lump of music streaming revenue to be earned, maybe it's still shitty if Apple steals spotify's business but breaks even on the opportunity cost.
With that accounting methodology, between the 30% apple store cut and the 70% music publishers cut, Apple music is left with no revenue whatsoever to fund their service, therefore running it at a 100% loss and thus price dumping which is also illegal.
I think dumping is only illegal in the context of international trade. Not sure of the nuances but operating at a loss certainly isn't illegal in most contexts.
It is technically illegal but thanks to a lack of appetite from antitrust prosecutors to do... well, anything very much combined with a high barrier of proof it's essentially allowed.
But this is an excellent accounting methodology then: Each sub-business should run as a separate business.
It picks my interest: Companies internally run as communist economies, all resources are merged and shared, employees are not individually associated with a revenue because the group is worth more than its sum, on the outer, liberal economy. At what size / on which criteria should a group inside a company be considered an independent product-and-loss entity, in order to avoid supercorporations to make use of monopolistic behaviors? Should a 100-billion-dollars marketing operation inside Apple be allowed to function at a loss if it pumps interest in all of Apple’s other products? Can Apple Music be disguised as a marketing operation instead of as an independent entity?
Whenever a company of significant size branches into another market where it has some unfair advantage thanks to it's dominance other industry it should come under scrutiny.
The reason products like Alexa and the Fire tablet have been so successful for Amazon is basically because they have been able to promote them for free on the worlds largest marketplace and then sell them at a loss offset by the profits generate from other segments of their business like ecommerce and AWS. I've been so underwhelmed by every Amazon product I've ever brought I'm 100% convinced their success in hardware has been almost entirely due to their cannibalistic business practises than their ability to make solid hardware that people want to buy.
This means in basically any market Amazon enters they don't need to make the best product, they just need to undercut and promote their products enough to kill off the competition. Google and Apple can also run this strategy very effectively with Google Search promoting Google products and Apple's hardware/appstore ecosystem promoting then locking users into their own hardware and software.
Since you mentioned that this piques your interest: There is an body of research and literature about this topic. The Theory of the Firm [0] is a good starting point.
In theory and superficially that makes sense, but they are the same company so it wouldn't make a difference in the end. It's not like Spotify can pay itself that 30%.
Let's take a step and ponder wouldn't you find it bizarre to have this sequence of events:
1. Apple creates iPod, and iTunes serves as its music store.
2. Apple creates iPhone, which has an iPod app.
3. Apple introduces App Store so other apps can be used on the iPhone.
4. iPod (Apple Music) competitors emerge.
5. EU says "that's it, Apple can't have iPod anymore on the phone unless iPod (Apple Music) becomes a separate company".
No one (successfully) sued Apple for anti-competitive practices on iPod. Ergo if the iPhone never had an App Store, they'd be allowed to have 100% of the revenue of iTunes, and ban competitors out completely.
By opening the iPhone platform to third parties, EU sees them as another type of entity completely. In effect the EU penalizes the creation of market places, because once you're market place, you lose control over your own products to the government.
Apple didn't invent music players, nor appstores, nor smartphones, nor digital music or music streaming. The entire argument is a red herring.
But even if we take this absurd argument at face value, it's still wrong: third party applications add value to iPhone and make them worth bying. If you could not install games, bank app, etc. On an iphone, iPhones would be useless and noone would buy them in the face of competition. The whole reason Windoes Phone died is that there were no apps. iPhone would simply follow
Third party apps have been dominant on PCs and Macs on the open web for a decade prior to the iPhone. Third party apps such as FB.Connor even Spotify.com still run on the iPhone built on HTML5. Of course, I will concede that the desktop publishing industry and the banking, finance, spreadsheet industries benefited from native computer apps in the decades prior to that.
Counter to the narrative of Windows phone’s failure, why were BlackBerry and Nokia successful despite not having third party apps at the scale iPhone does?
Third party apps add value to the iPhone — you’re right. They can also add confusion, adware, and bundleware if allowed to reign free; a curated, expensive gatekeeper is the cheap way to keep the crappy third party apps out; not a foolproof way, just a cheap way.
> No one (successfully) sued Apple for anti-competitive practices on iPod
Because they never had the market share and power in the music market that they have now on the mobile market that's why. You kind of answered why they are getting sued now yourself.
You're in effect saying "no, EU didn't sue iPhone because it added an App Store to iPhone, it sued iPhone because it was successful".
Is that better? Become successful, get sued? Android has 87% market share, iOS has 13%. That's not even a monopoly.
Of course we can define arbitrary categories like "Apple has monopoly on the iOS market". Which makes the concept of monopoly absolutely nonsensical, because then everyone has a monopoly. I have a monopoly on the slver username on HN, so I guess EU might sue me any moment now.
Also, let's recall EU suing Microsoft and forcing them to offer Windows without a media player. So what did this result in? It resulted in lots of nephews children and grandchildren having to visit their relatives and help them install Windows Media Player. I'm from EU and I want to like all their decisions, I'm team EU. But they're complete idiots sometimes when dealing with tech.
What a moot argument, there's absolutely zero competition in the mobile market. The living proof of that is that the only tariff changes Apple ever made in their whole mobile history was because ... of a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. They basically admitting the fact themselves, you can't even make this up.
Yes it's a duopoly and yes they are both abusing their market power. It got so bad that you have to get testimonials of mobile developers anonymously against those two companies because they are fearing retaliation against them (yes that does sound like a mafia).
> The living proof of that is that the only tariff changes Apple ever made in their whole mobile history was because ... of a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit.
Not only that, this change highlighted the App Store and Play Store cartel[1] that engages in price fixing[2]. Google also dropped their prices to match Apple's, but not any more or less.
Instead of mobile app distribution prices being dictated by the free market, they're dictated by the cartel. Prices have only changed once in a decade, and not in response to the market at all, but by the whims of the app store cartel.
All these laws are not about "monopolies", that is just the wording people commenting use. So, yes the "concept of monopoly" is wrong here, which is why nobody is actually doing that and you are attacking a strawman.
Note: back in the iPod days, iTunes did serve as a music store for the iPod, but you could buy MP3 files from other providers as well, and transfer them to the iPod via iTunes. This whole process didn't "cost" the provider or user any extra.
Now, it's true that iTunes did get significant traction because of convenience for users of iPods, however there were definitely options for other music distributors. In fact, back in those days, I tended to still buy CDs because they were DRM-free and similarly priced, and I could rip the songs at my selected quality settings to transfer to my iPod.
If Apple never had an App Store, then this wouldn't be a problem, true. There would be no "30% cut for almost nothing".
But would people buy as many iPhones if they were restricted to Apple-only services? Some might. I would expect more people would buy into more "open" ecosystems. I could be wrong -- and Apple has every right to shut down their App Store to find out.
> because once you're market place, you lose control over your own products to the government.
This is bog standard anti-trust. Yes, if you become massively successful, in a market, then you are now no longer allowed to do certain things. That is how anti-trust law works.
If you take over a market, or become massively successful, you become a monopoly/duopoly, and have to follow certain laws.
These laws aren't hard to follow though. You just have to allow competitors to use your stuff, and you can't use your market power against them.
>In effect the EU penalizes the creation of market places, because once you're market place, you lose control over your own products to the government.
Operating a marketplace generates billions for Apple, and without the Apple Store I doubt the iPhone would have any value today. This comes with legal duties. Apple can't do whatever with their marketplace, but must compete fairly within it.
That like how startbucks UK pays it's company in a different country a fee for using it's brand, and therefore has no profits in Uk and pays no tax here
The law says that the fees paid for IP in this way have to be plausible. Franchising is a long-established business model and nobody would run a franchise if the franchise fee ate all the profit. So Starbucks' franchise fees are not plausible. Why doesn't HMRC challenge this? I've no idea.
I don't think that can be right. On the surface you're suggesting that if a company worked in a particular area before another company then the first company is entitled to use anti-competitive practices, which clearly isn't true.
I think the main point the (grand?) parent is saying is that "Apple is in the phone business" isn't a reasonable description of Apple. I agree that Apple hosting itself on its own platform is an abuse of market position (especially for something as peripheral as music), but to claim that music/audio isn't a/hasn't been core part of Apple's business model is ridiculous.
Ah, gotcha. Yes, that does make more sense, thanks. But I still don't think it really addresses the second point, which is the crux of the argument as far as I can see.
Exactly, it's time they let others use the phone they built in Shenzhen to listen to music with apps not made by Apple.
There's 0 reason to over tax Spotify as punishment for trying to do it better. The capitalist thing to do would be to allow and enjoy fair competition in a pure and perfect market.
Apple Corp was a company started by the Beatles back in the 1960s. The later Beatles albums were released on Apple Records as well. This Apple was also a source of much legal litigation between the Fab Four and the Apple company being discussed in this post. See:
They have both been successful business ventures and interestingly the original idea for the Beatles' Apple Corp is actually very close to what Cupertino's Apple is today electronics, music and movies and retail:
"On the founding of Apple John Lennon commented: "Our accountant came up and said 'We got this amount of money. Do you want to give it to the government or do something with it?' So we decided to play businessmen for a bit because we've got to run our own affairs now. So we've got this thing called 'Apple' which is going to be records, films, and electronics – which all tie up"
They shouldn't be allowed to run an App Store, and they should probably have their services division peeled away into a separate company.
All of the mega tech monopolies need to be broken up. What business do any of them have being movie studios, advertising firms, car dealerships (Apple?), banks, and fifteen different marketplaces rolled into one? This is absurd.
Tech would be better if neither Apple nor Google ran their app stores, Amazon/Apple/Google weren't in the media business, and Google couldn't run a browser.
Nobody is mad that Apple/Amazon/Netflix/etc are creating competition for banks, movie studios, car dealers, etc.
The complaints about these companies are the specific areas where they hold a dominant position and unfair advantage over other companies. The App Store in the case of Apple/Google, advertising in the case of Google, etc. The areas where these companies have a stranglehold on distribution is the problem.
Amazon and Apple having movie studios and banking aspirations makes competition BETTER, not worse. Literally nobody is mad at Apple for having a credit card or funding movie productions.
Apple has zero control over credit card distribution or automobile purchasing. Why the hell would you want to protect the big banks and lazy old car companies from having to compete with Apple?
The reason you don't want a platform monopoly operating a payment service isn't that they (currently) have a monopoly on payment services. It's that they would leverage the platform monopoly into one, and then there would be less competition in payment services. Prohibiting vertical integration prevents that sort of leveraging without having to micromanage every multinational conglomerate.
The platform company should instead return their profits to the shareholders, some of which will invest them in upstart payment services or movie studios or car dealers. The reason they don't do it this way is that they lose the "advantage" of leveraging the platform monopoly. (There are also perverse tax differences, but that's a different problem.)
It's macromanagement. It's a big clear fault line that regulators can see from outer space, instead of trying to evaluate whether Apple App Store charging Spotify a given percentage is anti-competitive based on a detailed analysis of their cost structure and having to argue about the allocation of fixed costs between business units.
It also has the advantage of creating a de facto limit on entity size so we don't end up with corporations more powerful than elected governments.
And it's not a prohibition on vertical integration whatsoever, only on vertical integration for companies with market power in any market.
> It's a big clear fault line that regulators can see from outer space
Nothing in the world of regulation is a clear fault line. You're just creating different points for regulators and lawyers to fight about. How are you defining "market power in any market?" Is it just if a company gets 20% of a market? 50%? 70%? 90%?
This also gets extremely sticky in markets that are still developing.
Take Saas for example. Mailchimp arguably has "market power" in email marketing (70%). Should they have been allowed to get into the social post scheduling business? Using your argument, you could call that unfair competition for social post schedulers like Buffer, since Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the marketing stack.
But what if it's more efficient for all businesses to keep their email marketing and social post scheduling in one tool? Are you going to force everybody to be inefficient and use separate tools for everything because you think it's better the for the "social media management Saas" market?
Should that even be a market? How granular are you going to get over what's a market and what's just a product feature? Social post scheduling is both a feature, and a market of companies. This solves nothing and only creates more micromanagement headaches for regulators.
> How are you defining "market power in any market?"
This is already a concept that exists under established antitrust law. It's complicated and ugly and could probably use some reform, but it's also a different part of the equation. "Does this company have market power" is a separate question from what do we do if they do, for which the proposal is to prohibit vertical integration.
> Is it just if a company gets 20% of a market? 50%? 70%? 90%?
Market power has very little to do with what percentage of the market the company holds. For example, in a market with two local ISPs where one has 95% of the market and the other has 5%, they could both have market power because the market is so consolidated that the company with 5% could still be able to dictate terms to customers. On the other hand, a company with 99% market share might not have market power, if barriers to entry are low and any attempt to raise prices would cause new competitors to enter the market, as is the case with e.g. Walmart.
> Mailchimp arguably has "market power" in email marketing (70%). Should they have been allowed to get into the social post scheduling business? Using your argument, you could call that unfair competition for social media management Saas tools like Buffer, since Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the marketing stack.
I don't see the trouble here. Mailchimp may or may not have market power (I don't know enough about that specific market to evaluate it), but knowing 70% isn't really that informative. If they do have market power then preventing them from leveraging it to destroy Buffer is good. If they don't then they wouldn't be prevented from entering the other market.
> I’m not sure you understand what monopoly means.
Well, you'd best take that up with the EU and the US Department of Justice, then. You might be a little late.
> Nobody is mad
Half the people in this thread are mad. Companies putting up with app store bullshit and extortion are mad. Furthermore, this will only get worse as the mega monopolies extend their reach into more industries and force people to use their rails for everything, taking their pound of flesh with every interaction. Apple customers aren't even your customers in their model, for Christ's sake. Why do they get the monopoly on that? It's beyond evil and makes it hard to survive, let alone thrive.
Having an iPhone, working for one of these companies, or owning their stock shouldn't cloud your judgment as to what's happening to our industry. Open your eyes and see.
>They shouldn't be allowed to run an App Store, and they should probably have their services division peeled away into a separate company.
I think the ship has sailed on App stores. They're just better than the alternative and consumers are used to them. I'd consider them an integral part of the OS.
The problem is the fees. 30% is excessive especially so for in-app purchases where the customer is already acquired. The easiest and cleanest solution is to just cap these to something more reasonable. Something like 5% or maybe CC transaction costs + a couple percent.
> I think the ship has sailed on App stores. They're just better than the alternative and consumers are used to them. I'd consider them an integral part of the OS.
If customers really want app stores then prohibit platform companies from operating them and third parties will do it. But they'll compete with each other instead of abusing a monopoly into high fees and prohibitions on apps that compete with the platform's business interests.
Or if app stores fall out of favor as soon as they're not imposed on everyone by platform monopolies then it disproves your theory that most people independently want them.
30% is industry standard. Spotify takes 50% fee from Anchor; Tencent takes 50% fee in its China Android App Store and owns 48% of Epic Games.
If you mention Tencent fee in Tim Sweeny Twitter you'll get instantly banned.
Amazon's Twitch also takes 50%. But everyone's mad at Apple since they produce products and services everyone buys, even Google engineers mostly use iPhones and Macbooks.
% of revenue shouldn't be a thing. They're offering a service for distributing apps - there should be a standard fee and transaction costs. When I go to get tires on my car they don't charge me based on my income. When I purchase a book they don't charge a percentage of my income. On the app store suddenly you owe them a % of your revenue and you have to use them to get apps on iphone.
By your definition companies like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Epic Games, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, IBM, Stripe, Facebook, Samsung, Adobe etc would all need to be broken up as like Apple they are in multiple markets with similar market shares.
YC itself would need to be broken up given your criteria.
I don't see the problem with separating every platform company from every app store. They can obviously be operated by two separate entities, like Steam on Windows.
I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the market they created whilst dismissing that in fact they entered the music market with the goal to eat shares from Apple and not the other way around.
starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly.
Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it.
The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.
Apple doesn’t get a cut of their advertising revenue, and according to Apple was only paid 15% on subscriptions. With credit card processing fees and other associated costs it’s far from 100% profit.
That argument leads to the logical conclusion that Apple needs to be broken up so their music subsidiary have to pay their app store subsidiary the same 30% as Spotify do. Still not a logical defense.
It’s hardly abuse if Apple was the first to invent an iPod and iTunes and the online music business and then evolved their own products around their own offerings. They decided to let others into their own platform to enrich it, not to crush them. Spotify entered knowing that Apple already had a competing product. Why did they enter and start competing if they thought it was an unfair competition from the start? I find it hard to believe given the history of events. If it was in any way different then perhaps I could understand but to me it feels that Spotify just decided that now is the time to look for avenues to increase their profits and see the AppStore as the first opportunity to attack after never having had a problem before. Only a fool would start a business in a platform which tries to crush them so clearly that was never the case.
EDIT (cannot reply):
So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair.
If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair.
But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair?
It is not about who is first, is about fair competition, If Apple is the best then they should not be afraid to compete fair, let other web browsers exist, let alternative stores exist, let free apps show a Patreon link, let apps show the user the information that they have the choice to buy outside the store (defend this please, this information can harm the user somehow or it harms the pockets of some rich guy)
But you could be wrong right? Maybe we should analyze if there is actual any merit for the complaints on Apple or about the tracking on the web instead of inventing some conspiracy.
I would show you the example with Microsoft or Intel, this companies were found guilty and all the US nerds did not complain that EU is anti-american.(they were found guilty in US too)
You know what? The funny thing is that all of FAANG has their international HQs in the EU (Dublin, Ireland) for tax evasion purposes. I’d argue they are more reliant on the EU then.
Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is rational. Other EU countries have the ability to lower taxes right? It’s ironic that the EU is suing Apple because Spotify doesn’t want to pay 15% to Apple, yet the same people complaining of that have no problem with Apple attempting to avoid higher costs by having a non-Irish EU headquarters.
Yeah , the Apple tax makes Apple lazy and focus on how to suck even more, also makes some rich dudes richer while government tax goes into research, schools, roads etc.
Apple tax should not exist, you should pay for what you use or have freedom to chose exactly how you can chose web hosting companies and plans.
Nobody thinks of FAANG as EU creations. Even if Nintendo is headquartered in the USA, it’s still considered Japanese. IKEA is Swedish and so on. Where the companies were founded seems to play the largest role in their national identities.
> So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair.
> If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair.
> But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair?
> I honestly don’t understand this logic.
I mean, it's kind of textbook vertical monopoly.
Selling Windows is fine - you're competing over who makes the better OS. Selling Internet Explorer is fine - you're competing over who makes the better web browser.
But using Windows to push Internet Explorer is not fine - you're using your unrelated OS superiority to fight off Netscape Navigator.
It's a distorted market because the consumer is induced to go with iTunes over Spotify not because iTunes has the more appealing product, but because Apple makes iPhones. If the exact same software as iTunes was made by a non-Apple company, it wouldn't necessarily compete.
--
And I'm not sure it would be "fair" if AppStore didn't allow music apps, either. With web browsers and app stores, there's a decent case to be made that allowing those apps would compromise the iPhone product/ecosystem as a whole (although I'm personally of the "It's my phone and I demand to be able to install whatever the hell I want on it" philosophy and loathe walled gardens in all forms). Banning music apps simply because they compete with their own product would likely attract Vestager's ire just as well.
They bought out the name rights 8 years after iTunes launched.
That payment was $500 million, but they were printing money from iPod+iTunes at that point (revenues of $9.5 billion in 2006, $10.5 billion in 2007). I'd call it an ongoing headache more than a minefield.
When they started have no bearing. It’s using their power in one market to strongarm others in another.
It’s not about what is fair, it’s about making sure the market is healthy.
Yeah, my stance has always been that companies should exist to:
1. deliver value.
2. capture a fraction of that value.
I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store. It's not like Apple is building the apps for other people. You still have to build the app entirely on your own, the only thing Apple is doing is letting you distribute your app / distributing it for you, which costs pennies. People keep saying "but you wouldn't have devices to distribute your app to without Apple" and while that is true, Apple is already capturing the value for that part of the deal – they're selling the devices to customers. If they were giving away iPhones for free, that would be one thing. But if the only reason you are able to charge 30% is because you've monopolized distribution on a device that the user "owns", that is not ok.
Then there is the dubious value Apple claims to be providing to end-users by "maintaining the quality of the app store", but I don't think this is true anymore. Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. Apps are pretty well sandboxed at this point, requiring explicit permission for most worrying features, so I don't really think Apple oversight is needed. Allow 3rd party app stores already.
> I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store.
You’re entitled to your opinion. And maybe it is not valuable to you. But I doubt you even know the costs to run the service so my opinion is that you are speaking from a place of ignorance.
Part of the value of the service is that you don’t have to go and build it yourself. I’m going to bet that you’d die before you built it. How valuable is your life?
> Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons.
My opinion is this will get much worse. Just because you are a cute tinkerer who just wants to publish the app you made for your grandma doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who can’t wait to get their malware onto the platform that carries the most wealthy consumers.
Haha what are you talking about? Building an app store is... not hard. It's some detail pages and file transfer. That's it. I would definitely not rather die than build one. I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment, because I have in fact already worked on App Stores – I contributed to some of the jailbreak app stores (and ran my own repos) when I was a teenager. So yes, I think I have a pretty good handle on the costs (and they've only come down since then).
For your own edification on costs, just look at AWS prices to see how much it costs to store and transfer a file on S3 (fractions of fractions of pennies) – that type of activity is the main expense. This is not my opinion, it is... how much this kind of thing costs. You seem to think that is unknowable or something to anyone that is not Apple, but that's obviously not the case.
Hell, I'd almost be willing to bet that the existing developer account fees ($99pa for individual, $299pa for biz) could cover server costs for the iOS App Store (with a 0% cut).
The other way we know that it is not actually that expensive to operate is because otherwise Apple would allow other app stores and not be monopolistic about the whole thing. But they know that their model (taking 30% of revenue) would not be competitive in a free market, so they don't allow a free market.
> Malware
Please re-read my comment, especially the part about sandboxing and 3rd-party app stores. The suggestion is not that anyone can put anything in Apple's app store, it is that people should be able to have 3rd party app stores on their phone, which they can enable/install at their own risk. And those other app stores can have their own rules, e.g. if nobody else did I would start one where we charge cost+, as outlined above with S3 costs. E.g. if it costs me $1000 to deliver your apps + updates to your users every month, I charge you cost + 30%, or $1300 (or w/e). Spotify et al would of course prefer to use my app store, because that is much cheaper than having to pay 30/15% of revenue to Apple for every sub.
> I contributed to some of the jailbreak app stores
You didn't build or work on an app store. You played with one. Much easier to modify something that already exists than to create something where there once was nothing.
> just look at AWS prices to see how much it costs to store and transfer a file on S3
Look, if it's so cheap and easy to do, why is everyone so hell bent on getting onto Apple's? They should just do it themselves!
The answer is that it's not that simple.
> Please re-read my comment, especially the part about sandboxing and 3rd-party app stores
I reread it. You did not say anything about sandboxing _3rd-party app stores_. Thanks for wasting my time with that! You said "apps are pretty well sandboxed" and we've seen how well that's done to protect users' privacy. App Tracking and Transparency was created for a reason.
You really need to cool it with the condescension ("Haha what are you talking about?", "I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment"); it adds nothing to your arguments, except the veneer of juvenility.
> You really need to cool it with the condescension
> But I doubt you even know the costs to run the service so my opinion is that you are speaking from a place of ignorance.
> You didn't build or work on an app store. You played with one. Much easier to modify something that already exists than to create something where there once was nothing.
That's some impressive cognitive dissonance ya got there, you might want to try looking in a mirror. You have no idea how much involvement I had. Please stop arguing from a place of complete and total ignorance.
> Look, if it's so cheap and easy to do, why is everyone so hell bent on getting onto Apple's? They should just do it themselves!
Surely you can't be serious... this is literally the topic at hand. Apple won't let anyone do it themselves. That is why they don't do it themselves. People absolutely would do it themselves if Apple wasn't behaving anti-competitively. I'm glad you agree that Apple should open up iOS to 3rd-party app stores so that they can live or die on their own merits, rather than being prevented from existing in the first place, based on dubious claims of protecting users. Though again, it is worth noting that people (yours truly included) actually have done it themselves, through jailbreaking. And that many jailbreak apps have done quite well financially, handling the distribution themselves. This is success in spite of Apple, as requiring users to jailbreak before they use your App Store is in fact a pretty high bar and does in fact make your system less secure.
> You did not say anything about sandboxing _3rd-party app stores_... App Tracking and Transparency was created for a reason.
Um, yes. That is exactly my point – the apps themselves are sandboxed and permissioned, at an OS level, so Apple's oversight (in the App Store) is a lot less useful than it once was (whether it ever was particularly valuable is not a given). If an app wants access to your location, the user has to explicitly allow it to have that permission. It doesn't matter what App Store the app is being distributed on, that sandboxing is there regardless.
Also, isn't it a bit strange that Apple added such a feature in the first place? You'd think, since they were already gatekeeping apps that can be installed on your device, there would be no need, because Apple would catch apps that asked for permissions they didn't need, hmmm... just kidding, obviously this is because different users have different needs and Apple can't prescribe the same thing for everyone. Which is exactly why Apple should open up iOS to other app stores, and in order to keep iOS users secure they should focus on more things like App Tracking and Transparency, not on monopolizing app stores.
You're absolutely right. I said "I doubt you even know," not "I know for a fact you do not know," and am willing to be proven wrong. I made an assumption that I'm confident would apply to most people commenting on this story. I don't think I misrepresented it as anything other than an assumption.
Until you show me some receipts I'm going to continue assuming you are not actually privvy to what it takes to run the app store.
> Apple won't let anyone do it themselves
You've misunderstood. People are free to build up a fleet of devices, the OS that runs on them, the backend services that make up the app store, all the customer support channels and tooling, find/hire/train all the employees that keep it running, etc etc etc. Apple can't stop people from trying that. Peoples' problem is that they don't want to take decades to get there, which is what Apple has done... lots of pain along the way, too.
_That_ is part of the value proposition of the app store itself. The app store does not exist in a vacuum.
> I made an assumption that I'm confident would apply to most people commenting on this story
Great, well, I'm not most people commenting on this story. If you've ever jailbroken an iOS device, there is a very high probability your device subsequently ran code that I wrote. I have distributed apps and tweaks to literally hundreds of thousands of users through the repos I've run. Don't make assumptions when you don't need to.
> You've misunderstood.
No, I think you've misunderstood. I did not say building hardware, an operating system, and an app store is easy. I said building an app store is easy. Let me quote myself:
> People keep saying "but you wouldn't have devices to distribute your app to without Apple" and while that is true, Apple is already capturing the value for that part of the deal – they're selling the devices to customers.
Look, I get it – you're holding on to the idea that Apple built the ecosystem, so they're allowed to do with it as they please. And in general I'm sympathetic to the idea that if you build something, you get to control it. The only problem is that it is not only Apple's ecosystem... the devices themselves belong to the people they sold them to, and Apple should not be able to unilaterally prevent those participants from using the devices they purchased as they wish in an anti-competitive way. This is precisely why we have anti-trust laws.
> If you've ever jailbroken an iOS device, there is a very high probability your device subsequently ran code that I wrote. I have distributed apps and tweaks to literally hundreds of thousands of users through the repos I've run. Don't make assumptions when you don't need to.
It's starting to sound more and more like you do not actually work on the Apple app store, as you've had a few chances now to correct me on that. So I believe my assumption was actually correct, despite your dancing around the issue. You may have many impressive accomplishments, but unless working on Apple's app store is one of them, I'm not adjusting how much weight I put in your opinion, and I'm certainly not going to feel bad for the assumption I made... which, again, sounds to be correct.
In fact, you being a jailbreaker and having built up all that infrastructure tells me that you are financially incentivized to get 3rd party app stores on the platform.
And just so you know, no, I have not jailbroken any iOS device I own, because I trust Apple more than I trust you.
> I said building an app store is easy.
And I told you why I think you're wrong. In order to bake an apple pie, first you must invent the universe. I'll quote myself too: "The app store does not exist in a vacuum."
> the devices themselves belong to the people they sold them to
That is true for devices, but the use of the operating system is _licensed_ to you. Apple retains control of iOS: "The software...are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc" (https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS14_iPadOS14.pdf)
> Which is exactly why Apple should open up iOS to other app stores, and in order to keep iOS users secure they should focus on more things like App Tracking and Transparency, not on monopolizing app stores.
This is self-contradictory. If Apple allows third-parties to distribute apps outside the App Store, they lose the ability to enforce their App Tracking and Transparency rules.
With all due respect, have you ever developed an application for iOS? Because it doesn't sound like it, as this is not how it works.
Apps are sandboxed. In order to access certain features, they need to request permission from the operating system. e.g. there is a GPS chip in your iPhone. Apps, through the design of the OS (not the App Store), are unable to access the raw data coming from this unit themselves. Instead, they tell the OS "hey, I want access to location data", at which point the OS throws up a notification to the user asking if they want to allow the app access to that data. The user says yes, and the OS starts to provide the app with location data. At any point, the user can tell the OS "hey, stop giving this app access" and the OS will oblige. The App Store does not enforce this functionality at all, it is enforced at the OS level. Allowing 3rd party app stores would not change this. If Apple's App Store vetting process disappeared tomorrow, Spotify would not be able to get location data without the user's permission.
As a side note, I keep saying "at the OS level", but this is a simplification on my part. In more than a few places, Apple has gone further and done things like have the Secure Enclave which has complex interactions with the OS / kernel to make certain actions difficult even if you break out of the OS-level sandbox.
I have done mobile development (both iOS and Android) for a long time and am well aware how sandboxing works. You've misunderstood the issue if you think sandboxing sufficiently solves this problem.
Let me flip the question, are you aware what types of data apps collect in order to fingerprint a device? These are the same low level APIs that apps need for legitimate purposes, you can't simply disable them or put a permissions prompt in front of each one.
Yes, I am very aware of what types of data apps collect in order to fingerprint a device. That is exactly why I firmly believe this problem should be solved at the OS level, not at the App Store level. Because I trust a technological solutions much more than I trust App Store reviewers at Apple.
This is why I prefer an E2EE chat service to a service that is not but says "we promise we won't read your messages".
Do you really expect the OS to block apps from accessing screen size, locale, fonts, time zone, GPU metrics, accessibility settings, etc. when they actually need these APIs for legitimate purposes? Location and microphone permissions are red herrings when it comes to fingerprinting.
You're also neglecting the fact that malicious apps can mislead the user by prompting for permissions for a seemingly legitimate purpose and then abuse those permissions once granted.
It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter.
According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue.
So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing.
OK, that's the fact side of things. As for opinion, I think it's ridiculous that App vendors can't point out alternative payment options in their apps. That's a step too far. I'm also a bit concerned about digital sales, I can see why Epic doesn't want to pay 30% on every skin or loot box sold in Fortnite, but it's a free app otherwise distributed on the App Store for nothing so I think some sort of deal needs to be struck there.
Other than that, I think the iPhone is Apple's product. They get to decide how it works, and users get to decide whether that's acceptable or not. Apple (and NeXT) spent billions of dollars over many decades, taking huge commercial risks to build that platform. A decade ago we were constantly being told they were inevitably doomed and open always wins. Well no, some of us like the way Apple does things and don't want it to massively change. Some things sure, they're not perfect, but I do not support changes that would severely undermine the integrity of their product. You can always buy an Android phone.
But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.
That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone ecosystem offers. I, and millions of users like me, like the closed garden.
I’m effectively outsourcing the duties implied by caveat emptor to Apple. I don’t have the time/inclination to check the safety & honesty of each app developer.
> That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone ecosystem offers.
That's not an advantage - that's a disadvantage. Having an open ecosystem is a strict superset of the functionality of a closed ecosystem. If I can sideload, then I can sideload and use Apple's app store. If I can't sideload, then I can only use Apple's app store. It's a strict downgrade.
> I, and millions of users like me, like the closed garden.
Meanwhile, I, and millions of users like me (more, if you count every Android user as not liking walled gardens), do not like the closed garden.
Popularity does not make you right.
Absolute popularity doesn't even matter - only relative popularity does.
> I’m effectively outsourcing the duties implied by caveat emptor to Apple. I don’t have the time/inclination to check the safety & honesty of each app developer.
Apple doesn't do those duties consistently - malware repeatedly appears on the app store, and Apple doesn't even attempt to make sure that the vast majority of apps adhere to their privacy labels.
> "[banning sideloading] is a strict downgrade"
Nope, I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy text/email
> "Popularity does not make you right"
I'm not saying that the closed approach is fundamentally better than the open approach, but it sure is for some use-cases. That's why we have a phone OS duopoly.
Regarding Apple's garden walls not keeping all the creepy-crawlies out, sure, but it's vastly better than on Android.
> I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy text/email
If they add sufficient warnings about sideloading etc. then I don't see a problem.
If your mom is incapable of listening to these warnings and follows some guide to install some walware then I'm sorry but maybe she needs parental controls enabled or just a nice talking to about how to use her phone? Forcing everyone else to lose out on game streaming or Spotify signups seems like an overreaction to the problem and an oversimplification of the solution space.
Jesus, calm down. No-one is forced to do anything. Buy an Android. My mom will use an iPhone. The device fits the person and their behaviour, not the other way around.
> Nope, I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy text/email
Uhm, I guess that's true in the same sense that it's usually more rainy in New York than Chicago: One click RCE aren't exactly impossible for IPhone, just historically more rare than on android. Though recently at least one exploit broker stopped accepting iOS Safari one click RCE because they just got too many shrug.
It's pretty clear that the parent was not stating that those were the same thing, but instead that popularity does not mean correctness (either in the technical sense or the moral sense).
Peak hackernews comment.
This is an inane comparison. Murder is not the same as me being satisfied that every app publisher under the sun cannot make their own app store to pollute my phone further.
And with alternative app stores you continue to have the choice of only using Apple's App Store, where Apple would hopefully continue to check each app.
The bigger difference is that the play store does not mandate using Google as the payment processor for transactions and subscriptions. Spotify would have no reason to look for an alternative app distribution mechanism on Android.
Fortnite was kicked out of the Google Play store for the very same violation of rules and consumer trust that they pulled with Apple. Epic are also suing Google under the same concocted story.
No they sue Google for a different reason althougher. On how they blocked OEMs from making a deal with Epic to include their store/launcher on phones (thus allowing it the same capabilities for autoupdates and the like than the Play Store)
That sounds nice to me. Want me to update? Provide an appealing update! Although I am still not a fan of having any sort of app store in the first place.
You can always disable updates if you want. And what alternative stores specifically cannot do is install/update apps without having Android itself ask for confirmation again. So even if you manually order the store to install/update one or more apps, Android will pop up another prompt for each.
Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store rules for security and privacy through side loading and an alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me?
Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence.
I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well.
At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.
So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right?
If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.
As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the danger is that adding additional app stores will result in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy, security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put their app on a 3rd party store and now we’re back to them and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not sharing what and how they’re tracking. Apple’s benevolent dictator approach has revealed some nasty stuff these companies and others were doing. With a third party app, companies don’t have to tell me how they are using my data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally they’re fighting back.
The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and we lose what little power we have.
You can sideload on Android and yet there are stories all the time about Google removing some app and destroying some ones whole business. It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. The tyranny of the default is very real. Facebook is not about to move to the epic store so it can violate your privacy more.
Besides, there doesn't need to necessarily be a competing store. Even the ability to install from a website would be enough IMO. Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. If you want the benefit of the app store, you can pay the 30%. I suspect most developers would. Additionally, you still have to get your app signed through apples developer program, so if they revoke your certificate, they could still destroy you.
And I think we can let go of the idea that apple curates it's apps for safety and security. It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time, while scrutinizing and removing apps over tiny mistakes around phrasing of payment.
> It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers.
Sorry, I just completely disagree. Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable.
> Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app.
Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. Besides, that makes the user experience bad. Why do any of this at all? If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want.
I can already see it. You see some app in the App Store - you download it thinking it's an app but it's just a message: "Want to download our app? Go to our website!". Then I get all these pop-up warnings, download some malware on accident, whatever.
IMO (and I'll vote with my dollars at least) it's just a dumb experiment to run. I see 0 benefit in doing any of this. 0.
> It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time
Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here.
> Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable.
You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about?
And googles bad behaviors, and Google does have bad behaviors, is irrelevant to this conversation.
> Yea until that becomes anti-competitive.
How would that be anti competitive?
> If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want.
Jailbreaking your phone is a huge pita, even if you are technical, and it forces you to always be several versions behind. Not to mention very few companies will be making apps for jailbroken phones. This isn't a realistic alternative. If jailbreaking your phone were allowed by apple, then maybe it would be a reasonable compromise.
> Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here.
It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it.
--
The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified. If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load.
If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem.
> You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare the only other large scale play store which implements the exact behavior I'm talking about?
Well, I didn't it wasn't good, just that I wasn't sure it's comparable. Google is a software company, and has tons of apps (Youtube, Gmail, Maps, etc.) that are big-time heavy hitters that exist on both their App Store and the Apple one. And given that they own the Play Store and aren't inherently inclined to follow Apple's privacy rules, I think it's hard to draw an exact comparison between the two.
> How would that be anti competitive?
I think people would start to say it discourages users from participating in a free market or something along those lines. But I also don't think the Apple App Store is anti-competitive.
> It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling competition, and that apple is abusing it
Sorry, I don't have much to say here that's isn't us going back and forth with. I couldn't disagree more and it's unlikely we'll reach any consensus.
> The big argument I see is that the app store provides value, so the 30 percent is justified.
I think that's one argument, but it's not the only one.
> If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let people side load.
> If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30 percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem.
You'd have to convince me that, say, tracking users and avoiding Apple's privacy and security rules wouldn't be worth more for app makers. I think they're likely to change, to the detriment of users. So I'll personally oppose any changes here.
TBH I've done a lot of thinking on this topic, I'm pretty passionate about it, and I think I've arrived at a conclusion that is just and fair (in my view) and I'm unlikely to change my opinion in really any way - more likely to double down on it. I want to bring that up just to let you know where I'm coming from here.
Just wanted to ditto everything you’ve said. I don’t think people realize how good we have it with Apple and how easily things could’ve gone in a completely different direction. Yes it’s a benevolent dictatorship, but right now it’s still benevolent. I get a lot of value out of the fact app makers have their oh-so-clever hands tied.
And do you think that if Apple offers 2 iPhones , say the "American Dream" and "The communist pirate dream for EU" , and you buy the "safe one" for you and your family, then what are the downsides? If the "American dream " version is popular then FB will still be on it so you won't lose your FB access, you will still be protected from porn or apps that are not Political Correct and some EU "Communists" would have fun will their GPL programs and their inferior choices they had the freedom to chose.
But if this to much for the Apple devs to implement they can stop selling in EU, focus more on China , they can increase the tax on that store a bit and not lose any money.
>Or if it bothers you so much just don’t buy one. You don’t speak for the entire E.U.
Ha ha, laws don't work like that. I am speaking my opinion and it seems I am not the only one that can see past the Apple giant PR. But if you are from EU you are free not to unlock your device or buy the US cooler version. What you are not free is to demand EU to not apply the existing laws for Apple because Apple is cool but apply them for MS and Google because those companies are not cool.
iOS will have the sandbox, if some shitty app ask "Do you want me to open the microphone now?" the user can still say NO, if the app asks "Please give me access to location!" the user can still say No, or Apple could even be clever and offer the user the ability to give fake location data,
From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser(not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera, , location if the user allows it so go unsintall your browser (I think you don't have the freedom to remove it , sorry for you)).
THIS. Permissions must be enforced at the operating system level. Apple, Google, and others have repeatedly demonstrated that large companies do a really bad job at policing their app stores - and the fact that the task is intrinsically harder and technically inferior to building a better operating system doesn't help.
The only correct solution to many privacy and security issues (such as microphone access) is OS-level sandboxing and permissions control, not an un-scalable and error-prone attempt at auditing before publishing to an app store.
(note that I said "many" privacy and security issues, not "all")
But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly.
> From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they
No.. that's not my point of view or relevant at all to anything I wrote.
> shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser
Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones...
> not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera
>But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly.
Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs.
>Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones...
Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep.
>Yes you have to give the browser permission.
So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure?
> Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs.
I'm not sure how up to speed you are with the current state of the discussion around this topic, but the gist of it is that if you make changes to the App Store, then Apple's work with respect to privacy, security, etc. go out the window because major apps that want to abuse these things will move to third party app stores. Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of users.
So, making the change almost surely will result in "forcing me to change". Maybe it won't, but I don't see a point in running that experiment.
> Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep.
Yea maybe they are. My own experience - nobody has ever had a problem with their iPhone. But PCs or even Macs? Yea I've had to do work. Almost always it's downloading and installing some thing they shouldn't have.
> So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure?
If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products? I don't get this desire to change things that other people are quite happy with.
Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of users.
Without being overly smug here: Good.
Apple have been terrible stewards of the platform. Arguably better than Google, but that's a bar so low a deep-bore drilling machine couldn't clear it. The app store is overrun with scams, the approval process is nonobjective and unreliable, and prohibits entire classes of useful software on shaky moralizing grounds.
I don't want Apple to bargain on my behalf. I want apple to fuck off, get out of my way, and stop telling me what I can run on my hardware.
If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products?
If Apple doesn't like the EU's rules why not just stop doing business there?
> If Apple doesn't like the EU's rules why not just stop doing business there?
What rules? These are proposals for rules, and also lawsuits. There are arguments that have merit on both sides. But yea sure, if it was me and I were Tim Cook and had unlimited authority and the E.U. made Apple open up to 3rd party App Stores I'd pull the iPhone from Europe. Bad business decision most likely, but principled at least. Instead they're likely going to just do something else about it. There's always work arounds. Closing off APIs, charging gargantuan fees to be listed on the App Store for big players like Spotify, etc.
There are plenty of companies chomping at the bit to get on the App Store top lists and happy to pay a fee to do so.
> don't want Apple to bargain on my behalf. I want apple to fuck off, get out of my way, and stop telling me what I can run on my hardware.
I think Apple platforms aren't for you then. They're highly opinionated and always have been.
> The app store is overrun with scams, the approval process is nonobjective and unreliable, and prohibits entire classes of useful software on shaky moralizing grounds.
So the solution is third party app stores that are even worse?
>Bad business decision most likely, but principled at least.
Are you trolling? Apple and principles ? They are giving Chinese customers information to the government and do bussiness with Saudi Arabia that would execute all those gay Apple executives if they could, are this principles??? Or you mean "Ferengi principles"
I said it’s what I would do and that what I would do would be out of principle. Not what Apple will do.
The E.U. Happily bows down to China all the time so if you really want to do this whole anti-China thing everybody is happily playing in the mud - Apple, and the E.U. .
>If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products? I don't get this desire to change things that other people are quite happy with.
If Apple does not like EU rules for fair competition, warranties and repaiar Apple should not do bussiness there instead of breaking the laws.
People complaining about bad keyboards, bad video cards, bad batteries and even lawsuits forced Apple to not screw the users and recall bad products or offer free repair. If you like being screwed be my guest and do not use those limited"recall/repair" programs that complainers obtained (remember when Apple ass kissers would accuse people they put food int he keyboard because Apple is perfect)
Btw you have the option to buy an US version of iOS device, with the US version of the store, and never would change. you can;t say that FB will ask US people to buy an EU version of the phone so for sure on that US version Apple can continue protecting you.
It's not quite that simple. There are many APIs that are necessary for legitimate purposes that can also be abused. Many of the APIs used for device fingerprinting fall under this category. The contacts APIs are another good example (just because I want to load my contacts so I can send my friend a message doesn't mean I want you to exfiltrate my contacts to your server so you can build a shadow graph of my social network.)
Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.
The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) .
And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)
You are eliding the distinction between rules that can be enforced by the API and rules that can only be enforced by pronouncement. Anyone can do the former. I buy an iPhone because Apple does a decent job of the latter.
Now of course if Apple is forced to permit third party stores, they’re going to be forced to make it really easy to get on these stores. Epic, Google and Amazon are going to make sure of that. So this isn’t going to be like obscure alt stores on Android that the nerdiest 2% tinker with, it’s going to be a shitshow.
If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.
>If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.
So is fine if Apple does not put iMessages on other stores or let open source people to create a bridge to talk with iMessages.
If there are many people like you say 50% that won't unlock the phone then Google and FB will put their apps on all stores because there are more users. But if you are just 1% then it is fair that the 99% should not suffer because you want unfair stuff because it advantages you.
What has iMessage got to do with anything? Don’t blame Apple because Google’s ten attempts to build an Android messaging platform were all dismal failures. Nothing stopped Google from mimicking iMessage and making that the default SMS app.
It’s not a question of who wants Apple to remain the sole gatekeeper of executable binaries, but rather who enjoys the benefits that come from that, even if they don’t explicitly realise it. I contend that it’s far more than 50% — especially because the few people who actually “care” about App Store diversity have already jumped ship to Android. (Or if they haven’t, they have proven that they don’t actually care.)
Is about your own hypocrisy. Apple is limiting iMessages and is fine with you but the notion that Google would limit the Maps app to their own store makes you mad. It makes sense that you are selfish and don't care about the larger picture
Anyway if you could look at the real world and not at the fantasy created by the FUD you would see that on Android there is no Facebook app store and Facebook is stiull present on the google Play store(and yes Apple and Apple users are not more special that for only for them Facebook will make a new store)
Why does there need to be anti-tracking laws? What if some people want to be tracked in exchange for a cheaper product? Apple allows people that value that to buy that.
Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger number of victims. Should information be hidden from them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a developer without giving Apple a big cut?
Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.
If anything I think the App Store has helped to drive the purchase price of software to $0. This in turn has driven every software vendor to either a subscription pricing model or a (privacy-invasive) ad model.
Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers or developers, but it could also be considered an economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.
> Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform?
Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean things like removing any links to your website, because users could buy a subscription there instead of on through the app.
> Is it artificially raising prices?
Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.
>Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care.
I suspect the law is not structured so as to take your personal interest into consideration.
>I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious.
this seems a very American concept of anti-trust, benefiting consumers is only one part of what concerns European anti-trust, in this case the question is does Apple Music have an unfair advantage on the platform against other music services - the answer would appear to be yes, for actually two points -
1. because they don't have the pay the fee the other music services have to pay
2. because they are not artificially restricted from communicating alternative methods of subscribing to their customers (because they don't need to because they are Apple)
I don't need to accept a huge licence agreement before I enter a supermarket
If I were to piss off their staff and get banned from Wallmart, they don't get to take away everything I bought from Wallmart in the past 10 years.
If I buy a game from Walmart, and the game sell in game items, I don't need to call wallamrt employee to come to my house to collect the money for that - that's effectively the epic lawsuit.
The way I've seen the rules inforced (though inconsistently) it would be more like walmart not letting Coke put their website on the can, because you can buy coke directly from the website.
"The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue."
The vast bulk of the rest likely signed up elsewhere and aren't free users. I signed up online, as I imagine most people do for most services. I'm not sure if Spotify even had an app subscription at the time, though even if it did I wouldn't have used it.
I signed up for Netflix, Skillshare, Prime, Disney+, etc, all on their own sites. Even my Microsoft Office apps I bought a multi-year subscription on some site (saving something like 40% over the app fees). There is zero value for me subscribing to things like that through Apple. Actually negative value.
If it's some single-platform little app that needs a subscription to use the beautifier filter or something, sure, provide that "value".
"there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing"
They have gotten hundreds of billions in purchases from consumers, all but the very first purchases predicated on a robust and healthy app ecosystem. Apple runs the app store for me, the guy who buys their devices. They are certainly getting loads for it.
It is perverse that Apple bars notifying users that they can subscribe elsewhere, and eventually that is going to be regulatory eliminated.
This is clearly because they removed the ability to subscribe in the app to avoid paying those 15%. So the rule imposed by Apple is costing them subscribers, all those who would have subscribed if it was available in the app (or even just if they could be informed about how to subscribe).
The fact that Spotify has barely no customer who subscribe through their app is showing that there's anticompetitive behavior. In a healthy market they would have a share there.
I haven’t ever subscribed to Spotify because I don’t see any _value_ in Spotify as opposed to what I get from Apple Music. I’m smart enough to know how to subscribe to Spotify from the web.
(There are other services like Pandora I would have paid for, in or out of the App Store, had they been available in my jurisdiction. Spotify just never interested me.)
I know that makes me an outlier, but it seems to me that Spotify has a much heftier case to make that they’re _missing_ customers because of Apple’s payment rules.
I personally don’t want alternative app stores; they will reduce the security and trustworthiness of the iOS platform. I do think that Apple should be reviewing its app / in-app purchase pricing, and I do think that there is a market access concern problem. I don’t have any good answers for it, because I _do_ think that some of the actions criticized have been net positives.
If you sign up for Spotify outside of the app then Apple sees 0 of that revenue. And yet they are then also hosting and distributing apps for these companies.
I think they’ll probably start charging companies like Spotify a banana amount of money to be on the App Store or on iOS at all if they lose these legal battles. I think the pull of the iPhone is far stronger than any app and there are many developers waiting for their chance to reach the iOS audience.
Every major app that iOS missed would be a significant dollar amount of sales that Apple would lose. If Netflix or Spotify or PrimeVideo wasn't available on iOS, not only would that be a marketing disaster, it would yield sales consequences. This ignores the catastrophic regulatory consequences they are already poised to incur.
Apple runs the app store for users (people like me who in aggregate have made it the most valuable company in the world), and it is simply bizarre seeing these claims like it's some enormous expense that they're doing because they're benevolent (which is quite clearly the foundation of your comment, given the claim that Apple could charge "banana" amounts just for being on the app store, contrary to reality where they're already under enormous scrutiny for claiming these fees as a payment processor).
There is an argument that Apple could charge some fee for their expenses of operating the app repository. Those fees, to avoid the regulatory hammer, would be absolutely tiny compared to what they are currently getting from their take.
Predicting that they're going to charge a "bananas" amount for "hosting and distributing apps" -- ostensibly on the basis of the cost of all of these "free" users (where free means paid enormous amounts for devices based upon this service) -- certainly does seem to make that claim.
Well, I can tell you with certainty that wasn't the claim that was made.
> ostensibly on the basis
Is where you begin to separate from my comment.
But in the spirit of good conversation, my point was that Apple will collect some fee for companies to be on the App Store, especially the large ones (Facebook, Netflix, Spotify, etc.). They're not going to just say well I guess we won't charge developers anymore. I think the idea with the percentage of revenue was to have the amount taken grow in proportion with the value of the user base and number of users using a particular app, especially if they might have discovered that app on the iOS platform (i.e. lead generation).
If that goes away, there's no reason that I can see that Apple won't say, well we charged you X last year, we estimate that you're deriving Y amount of revenue from the App Store so we're going to charge an annual fee of Z to be on the App Store.
>company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes
That's not a problem, there's no inartistic correct amount to make for enabling or providing value. For 30 years now, software makes much more than that as numerous industries no longer employ people but software.
The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused. For Apple, the advantage that can be misused is to deny some API or the existence of competing businesses on their platforms. They can also do unfair pricing, for example it could be argued that %30 on Spotify is unfair when Apple has directly competing product.
For Amazon for example, they can have analytics on the businesses on their platforms and create competing products and promote them unfairly.
There are countless examples of Amazon doing this. Google was also fined many times for using their dominance in one area to force dominance in another.
Essentially, it's the good old platform owner getting greedy issue.
IMHO we need platform and product separation rules, similar to the Hollywood rules on separation of production and distribution.
> The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused.
Except every platform ever built is there to get an unfair advantage. That’s the endgame for all the companies. Why would you build a platform otherwise? There’s a perpetual growth expectation after all.
You can make a platform because you want to sell it. You lock your platform because you don't want someone with a better browser or OS to compete with your lower quality products.
I think Valve is a good example of how to do it. Sure they also take a sizeable chunk out of sales, but they seem to compete on the same terms with their games with everyone else on Steam.
Going so far as to clearly make an unfair advantage doesn't make sense if your platform is already printing more money than you could reasonably spend. As is the case with Apple, and with Valve. Music sales are probably a drop in the ocean compared to what they make on hardware and the appstore overall. They just got greedy and started acting like assholes when it came to their competition.
> They just got greedy and started acting like assholes when it came to their competition.
I think we can all find examples when platforms were not "greedy" and eventually got pushed out as irrelevant. That's why Apple and others will try to leverage their position to promote their new services.
Yes, the incentives are often perverse. However, there are many reasons to build a platform even if your endgame is not extracting all of the value yourself and that is, make money from the commission on the platform or protect your interest in other businesses through the platform(for example, Android and Chrome platforms protect Google from being pushed out of data collection for advertisement).
Anyway, businesses might have that kind of aspirations but thats why we have governments. An important argument against influence of the businesses in the government and libertarianism.
Apple has built itself up into a vertical monopoly, which used to be illegal. There is no good reason to allow anti-competitive behaviours. They shouldn't be allowed to host the platform and compete with applications at the same time.
And yet vertical integration is a big part of why Apple products are so loved. By denying the option of vertical integration, you’re forcing the totality of products we use to be incrementally a little bit more crap.
Personally I’d have no problem if Apple was forced to give all streaming music services like Spotify a sweetheart (below cost) percentage, say 5%, which wouldn’t cover the totality of merchant fees, gift voucher markups, and dealing with fraud.
> no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not.
That’s not exactly right. If Spotify (just as an example) would acquire all of their customers through their website or desktop app then they would pay nothing to Apple. That fee is only there if a user does use the InApp purchase option which Spotify doesn’t have to offer. So they’re paying only 30% to Apple if the their customer has subscribed through the iOS App.
Where there are forbidden or prevented to inform the user that they can register somewhere else cheaper. This is explicitly mentioned by the EU commissioner in the press conference.
> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!!
This seems to be the case for all markets. I don't really see myself winning a case against wallmart if I complain they want a markup on sales of my product and that they are misusing their "monopoly" on "wallmart shelf space" by not allowing me decide to put my products in their store without their say, or without letting them earn money on the transactions that happen through their store.
Walmart isn't competing openly though. They have a 100% monopoly on wallmart shelf space. Target is a different platform down the street sure, but that's like Apple vs. Samsung. You can't get the Apple app store on a Samsung, and you can't get the android appstore on an iPhone. But Target can't put products on wallmarts shelves and wallmart can't put products on targets shelves.
That we've allowed Apple to have a monopoly on all Apple apps this whole time is insane to me. Google at least does allow users to install apps and an entire app stores off the market place, even if many don't take advantage of it.
Walmart for example has an average margin of under 2% across their products. For every $1 they bring in, they only expect to make 2 cents. And here we have Apple, who often is simply providing a download button, advertising is extra, to take 30% off the top.
Fine, so long as they “fix it” for everyone. Whatever rules they come up with must be universally applied. That includes for Sony and Microsoft and the game console online stores.
Side note: Please stop using EU and Europe interchangeably, they are not the same thing. 100s of millions of people live on the continent of Europe, but not in the EU.
I don't disagree with you, but you couldn't really have picked a worst example (short of an an actual EU member country) given how their bilateral treaties with the EU means EU rules apply to do business in non-EU Switzerland.
Is not about the percentage, are you aware that you can't even mention you can buy a subscription from the website in the iOS application? Apple does not allow alternative app stores and is actively blocking you to inform of alternative methods of payment.
(A) It is only about Music (other cases exists in parallel). (B) They declared that the 30% market share of their devices has a practical vendor-lock-in (so a monopoly without choice there). (C) Apple competes with other Music vendors and cut them by 30% AND blocking them from directly accessing the user AND that they abstract the user away from the App (leaving the other app zero information while they have a monopoly on information)
Same is true for Walmart. If you own shelf space in a store front you get to dictate the terms for people who want to get onto those shelves.
The major difference is only that for other phones, the stores decided to let everyone go and put up diy shelves in their stores and now people are demanding the ability to do it in Apple stores too.
I believe it is 30% for the initial subscription (or maybe first year?), and then 15% after that. If you are big enough, and probably aren't competing with a market Apple wants, you can negotiate to the 15% (maybe lower?) from the get go, e.g. Netflix.
I think argument about 30% is not that good. There is a number of services that Apple provides like software distribution, updates distribution, reviews (even though they don't benefit software creator directly, they build trust in the platform and attract more users), invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents) and also marketing.
I spoke once to a guy who was selling English language courses on CDs in brick and mortar stores plus he was sending courses by snail mail. He's got interested in that new at that time App Store thing, so I've asked him about the fee. He said that comparing to his current packaging and distrubution costs, paying stores only to be able to put his product on a shelf those 30% is a laughably small fee.
Apple don't let us do any of that ourselves, so it's impossible to say that 30% is an appropriate fee for doing it. If they allowed competitor App Stores or direct downloads, and didn't ban us from even mentioning other ways to purchase a subscription (and other such anticompetitive practices), I would find this more convincing.
Every stupid app would have its own store if they did. As an iOS user, that would be detrimental to my user experience.
We're seeing a similar phenomenon in the streaming space now, and it's horribly obnoxious. Hardware lock-in is the only thing keeping app distribution on iOS sane.
Before the "but android" rebuttal, consider the more comparable (IMO) situation of wallet apps on android.
> invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents)
Paddle.com do this as a standalone service for any digital product (I use them for my SaaS).
It costs 5%, and that covers all payment transaction fees too, they handle local VAT for the whole world, includes subscriber management tools etc, and they directly handle support for all billing-related requests from your customers.
30% is extortionate.
If it is a reasonable price, why not compete against alternatives fairly?
Steam also has a tax but you still have a choice as a developer or as a gamer. Cyberpunk is on Steam, Gog, Epic and maybe other stores(there are many such games where you as the user can decide what store you trust , what is more comfortable for you or what company you like more).
If you are an iOS developer and and 2 other stores would exists, then you would publish on all to maximize your profit, and hard core Apple fans still get their app from the Apple store but it could cost a bit more.
That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'.
I fear that the endgame of multiple App stores is that the guarantee Apple gives (for instance with the privacy labels) will be sidestepped by businesses like Facebook who will force people through their own store without them.
Seeing how many people don't read the small print and just install everything available to them that's the most probable outcome.
>That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'.
Exclusives are not that many and instead of fighting like idiots to have only one store we could ask laws to block artificial exclusives.
On PC is not a big deal to install Origin and play a game if you are desperate, on iOS you can't install stuff without a big effort to jailbreak your device (though you can do it on OSX and I did not see any malware/viruses or similar complaints)
Said like that, your arguments sounds like “I had a friend in another business who was abused way harder, we should give Apple a break for abusing only a little”
I think we’d agree reducing/eliminating undue middle-men fees should be a goal whatever the amount.
In particular Spotify for instance gets little benefit from having Apple as a middlemen, while smaller players would sure appreciate the convenience. The argument would be to have a choice to rely or not on what Apple provides.
This is all fine if other stores existed on the phone that could compete with Apple's offering. If it's such good value then developers would choose the 30% cut over publishing on an alternative store with less fees (and potentially less benefits). But as Apple holds a monopoly on app stores on the iPhone this assumption that the cut justifies the value offered can never be tested in a real market setting.
Apple doesnt need to charge any fee (like how macs and pcs never charged a fee to install apps), they get enough benefits from the millions of apps that enrich their platforms, that they otherwise wouldn't ever build themselves.
This whole perverse 'ecosystem' exists because of the skewed oligopoly dynamics of mobile phones.
something is missing here, maybe quote the thing you replied to or be more clear.
Since is not clear, I might be off topic, Apple can not sell it's stuff in EU or can comply with the laws , it is fun when "our stuff, our rules, use something else if you don't like it" is applied to Apple.
It's far from the first time Apple tries to weasel it's way out of EU legislation. I remember it was this way with AppleCare years ago as well. One had to really fight them to uphold the minimum warranty guaranteed by national legislation.
Anything involving Apple Silicon goes straight to the top of the frontpage, comments are full of people absolutely gushing over just about anything - I personally don't really care other than that I find it subtly funny the number of times I see people saying "Wow my new M1 Mac is so much faster than [Different Mac that's almost a decade old, but I'm either not used to thinking about Apple products in terms of their internals, or I'm forgetting the passage of time]"
unfriendly as in "unfriendly to discuss"... not the company, itself - which tends to be favored. (this is why I said unfriendly 'for')
Just the topics. It's a download fest (on any side) for anything that doesn't fit their purpose. M1 is a prime example - it was top of the page and most of the comments were nothing about the technology, etc.
About M1 - I find nothing spectacular about it, given the amount of transistors it has.
How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes?
Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee".
How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine with the fee. If they weren't, they wouldnt use it. It's a choice.
Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything.
>Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything.
There's a reason for that. Not everything can be defined clearly. If every law gets defined down to a t, we will be in a very sorry state indeed. (off topic, but that seems to be happening more and more, with every lawsuit that goes to court and gets somewhat arbitrarily -and permanantly- defined)
Think about the regular people or the artists, not the giant.
Say we are a group of musicians and we hate the fact that a big chunk of our money is going to giants including ones from authoritarian countries... so we the musicians think . "let's make our own steaming platform, all the profit goes to the musicians"... what is the problem then?
Did you found it ?
If mobile devices, consoles and computers are locked then I will not be able to realize my dream of removing the parasites from the industry, I would be happy to pay for the SDK, to pay for a genous to review the app, to pay for the bandwith of the updates, but I will not be happy to let a parasite to suck 30% of my sales(NOT even profit)
Sure . the free market with only 2 players that were caught in the past colluding to do illegal shit https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo... , they would never collude to non compete on the Store tax or offering "transfer" services .
Again, no one is making Spotify use apple. They don't have too. They choose to because they ll make money. They just want to make more money by going to court and demanding a cheaper service. Why should apple have to, just because they happen to be in the same business?
People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.
Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.
Apple forbids you to put a link or a text message in your app to inform the users that they could pay for a subscription or product on a webpage.
So how can we spin "forcing developers not to inform users so users pay more and Apple makes more money" in such a way where this is not "screwing users". If I was a fanboy I would say that "most iOS users are poor old grandmas and to much information and options is too much for them AND for sure the grandma hit I agree on the TOS where Apple says that they force users to hide useful information"
1. Is Apple using their platform to promote their services? Yes.
2. Is Apple making it harder for competition to compete on their platform? Yes. Someone mentioned Apple Music is not a subject to 15-30% fees while Spotify is.
3. Are companies building platforms to do exactly that? Also yes. There’s no point in building platform and not using the benefits of controlling it.
So where does that leave us? Apple is doing exactly as you’d expect it to do. Government will try to restrict that, that’s what it’s for. What I don’t get is why people are so emotional about it. It’s all out in the open, why pretend Apple isn’t using their platform ownership to undermine completion? Why get upset that they do? People perceive this situation as black and white, nothing in between.
> 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can operate elsewhere.
Defining "elsewhere" is important here.
They cannot operate on the same platform through alternative installation methods or the web (considering how Apple limits PWAs to be dead in the water). They also cannot reach these users through other platforms because of the immense lock in that Apple builds up intentionally. [1]
So they can operate "elsewhere" but they cannot reach those consumers. They are owned by Apple.
Regardless of how you feel about the legalities or how much freedom you think a company should have, that is obviously bad for competition and consumers.
> How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
I’m sure many businesses would be perfectly happy to have no access whatsoever to the platform Apple built and maintain (platform meaning the App Store in this context), but if they want to ship on iOS (which is where all the money is), they have no choice.
Indeed, which is why they took $48bn in revenue for iPhone sales this quarter.
Their argument that they are responsible for Spotify’s iPhone-originating revenue to the tune of a 30% cut is a complete farce. If the iPhone didn’t have third party apps, no-one would buy them.
>What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
Maybe look at OSX ? Why can Apple be happy with OK with one but not the other? If you want to imply that phones are not computers then tablets are not phones and more like computers, so we all know that if it OSX was created today would be locked.
> How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
I see the argument all the time - I don't think it's really in good faith.
You could argue that it was in fact the app developers who built the platform. For the _average_ iPhone or Android user, how much time is spent in the default apps outside of core phone functionality (making calls, reading/sending sms)?
I would assume most people spend time in 3rd party applications like WhatsApp, Facebook, Spotify, etc.
The "killer app" of the iPhone isn't apple - it's the tens of thousands of 3rd party developers. If all 3rd party developers stopped developing for iOS then the iPhone would be a dead platform.
> How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
Since smartphones became essential to a functioning modern economy.
And it's not about prices, Apple is free to setup any price they want but they should have a choice to publish their app on their website without Apple if they want to.
> How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
Because we have a regulatory system designed to ensure that happens as capitalism doesn't really function if you don't.
Also "platform" is bullshit. By "platform" we mean "Apple used it's control of the hardware to force control of all software on an unprecedented level so they could rent seek." There is no right to a "platform" here. Apple run an app store. People should be free to chose to use it or not, but they're not because Apple abuse their position as hardware manufacturer. That isn't a platform.
Why should people be forced to use Honda engines with Honda cars? Honda ONLY offers Honda engines, not any other manufacturer. The are abusing their control of the integrated car to force control of the drive system and engine. People should be free to choose to use Honda engines or not.
Apple created an integrated product that billions of people prefer. I don’t think it’s for us to arbitrarily tell Apple which parts of their product have to be split into different categories we arbitrarily define for them.
You can replace that Honda engine with a different one (at your own risk) if that's what you want. Honda also doesn't force everyone to give them 30 or 15% of engine oil or washer fluid sales.
The only way to install an app on an iPhone is via Apple's store. You can't download it from the dev's website and install it. You also can't use a different app store because Apple doesn't let you. And you also can't buy something on an app (eg: a subscription) without using Apple's payment system or even link to a donation page (why?).
You can have a well integrated product and still give users and developers some freedom.
For example, Android phones usually come with Google's Play Store, which is what the vast majority of users use. It's no different from Apple and the App Store. Then, optionally, you can download the apk (the .dmg or .exe equivalent) from the dev's website and install it. You can also install a different app store, if that's what you want (almost no one does it, but the option is there). Apps are still only allowed to do what the OS let's them do (eg: you still need to give them permission to access your location, camera, etc), so you're only missing the privacy given by the review process. And when it comes to payments, you can use Google's payment system or something else. Not very different from what happens on your computer.
Some people say this is terrible because then Facebook can create their store to bypass Google's rules. In practice, Facebook knows most users won't sideload apps or install a different app store, so they follow Google's rules like everyone else.
Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something, and won't take a decade and a half to conclude.
The penalty won't be the big deal here, it'll be what Apple is prohibited from doing. And it'll be really exciting if the precedent set blows back on the entire 30%-rent-seeking-platform-industry.
> Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something
Are you joking, right?
Below is the quote from the linked article:
> The EU ruled in 2016 that Apple had to repay 13 billion euros ($15.7 billion) in unpaid taxes to the Irish government, after the latter granted “undue tax benefits.” Apple and the Irish government have contested the decision and the case is still in court.
I believe there is going to be many years, many meetings, dinners, salaries, bonuses funnelled out, and in my opinion, also money changing hands under a table, before anything really happens.
EU is all sizzle without the steak.
The tax case takes so long because they have a participating government on their side, and it’s far to be clear cut on a legal perspective. The app store issue is in many respects simpler.
It would be interesting to see if that new company ventures into Android as well.
I don't own an iPhone, but would welcome a professional alternative to f-droid, and Google play on my phone. A well curated appstore would be the first thing I configure on "moms new samsung".
If the careful curation, the QA and "rent-seeking" of the Apple-app-store is truly as valuable as the users say it is, that store would be just as valuable on other phones than the iPhone, not?
Because the mac division will become the lesser of the sister companies. Its best people will go with the more profitable divisions on the split. And it's not in great shape as it is. When its ROI turns out to be lower than that of the rest of the company, year after year, more heads will roll, ending with the sale to some Asian manufacturing giant. And that will be the end of it.
Splitting off the media part (iTunes, Beats, Tidal, and the rest) will have the same effect, I fear.
Is it fair to call Apple's platform rent-seeking? I think a 30% cut is certainly far too much but I wouldn't call it rent-seeking. The platform itself provides a lot of value and they are entitled to charge something for it.
One might argue they already capture the value in the phone's price. Their hardware might be good, but if they switched to android overnight, iPhone sales would plummet.
It's clear many companies think the 30% cut is too high, but giving up on Apple means giving up on 45% of the highly-lucrative US market.
This means Apple is able to use its dominant position to squeeze the margin of other companies via the too-high 30% fee. A clear monopolistic practice.
As for the value-add (since rent-seeking is about charging without value-add) — it's smaller than you think. Contrast with Android, where you can at least install the app without going through the official App store. Apple's is simply charging for gatekeeping the access to its market (Google would like to do this too but historically hasn't bee in a position to do it as effectively).
The cost to Apple is largely flat. A free app costs as much to host per user as a paid one, and both arguably cost less than a service client like Spotify. And what does Apple add?
I hope the outcome of this is the dissolution of "free" distribution. It's not free, it's sending and revenue to Apple and Google, and the balance is (more than) paid off by paid apps. Flat fees for everyone, pay a cent or so per user per year. It's up to you to make that work.
The problem is that if Apples' services have a price, then they should price it out, like any provider.
"Here's the price to have your app in the store, here is the one for one download, here is the one for an update".
Having a blanket "buffet" pricing (sub is 1€ or 100€ ? Doesn't matter it's a set % you owe us !), making it illegal to let the user get the app another way, making it impossible for them to not pay through Apple (and then pay back Apple what you we them for the service you use) is why they're going to lose.
I agree. There is a lot of value in discovery. Just being on the App Store puts software in front of peoples eyeballs who otherwise may not ever know it exists. Is discovery worth 30%? I honestly don't know, but it's worth something.
Unless you're big enough to get featured, App Store discovery is pretty bad. Search has always been spotty and has not improved much. Meanwhile, if you want to associate your app with a keyword you can pay Apple (again) for iAds. This sometimes leads to competitors shoving their way to the top of the search screen when you're searching for a specific app name. Something that's pretty infuriating for me as a customer looking for a specific app.
The issue is it being a mandatory offering, as opposed to alternative stores. And it's designed to make a profit, not to secure iOS in any meaningful way. (For instance, the requirement on IAPs, despite them not requiring additional software distribution services or app review costs for Apple.)
If Apple wants to secure or curate their platform, fine, but it's now a general computing device, and alternative platforms must be allowed, and most importantly, users must not be prevented from hearing about them.
Imagine the pressure Apple would feel from consumers if they were even still permitted to charge 30% and require companies to use their app store... but they also were required to let apps tell users to go to their website for a cheaper price.
Apple would need to drive it's prices down at least enough to make it worth eating their tax for a smoother experience. The fact Apple prevents consumers from being told about their cut or that things can be gotten cheaper elsewhere is the most insidious and obvious consumer harm in their entire schtick.
I don’t understand why people say it’s a general computing device. It’s clearly not nor has it been advertised as such.
If it actually was a general computing device you could just install an entirely different operating system onto it.
If Apple allowed users to install Android on iPhones but didn’t change iOS would that be an acceptable solution? If so, what’s stopping someone from just getting an Android device now? If not- doesn’t Android already fix all of the issues you’re describing?
That's the whole issue - it is a general purpose computing device but Apple is trying to prevent users from using it as such for their selfish reasons.
Not only is that anticompetitive, it's also dangerous (state actors can and do apply pressure on them to censor dissenting apps as Apple is the the single gatekeeper) and wasteful (you can't easily repurchase older unsupported devices due to the artificial limits inserted by Apple in what they can boot).
A device having the capacity in raw computing power to be a general purpose computing device does not make it one. Nor does you wanting it to beone.
I'm growing really frustrated with the attempts to force Apple via law to turn my 0 maintenance iPhone into another computer I've got to bloody manage.
I don't understand this logic. You go into buying an iPhone knowing all of the restrictions they place on it. Why would you buy it and then complain about the restrictions? Just don't buy it in the first place. You can buy one of the dozens of other cell phones on the market with an OS that's more open.
I need an iPhone because of iMessage. All my friends use normal messaging, and without iMessage texting is impossibly slow. I've tried to get them to switch to WhatsApp but they refuse. It's a big enough deal that I'm willing to look past all of iOS's bullshit. But I'm not happy about it.
But it’s not though, that’s just your opinion - is anything with a PCB a general computing device? In any case I’d love if all things with any computing functionality be made completely open. Fridges, TVs, microwaves - etc
We classify a general purpose computing device from the perspective of what a user can do with it: if you can word process AND watch movies AND play games AND read books AND schedule appointments AND message people... well, that's not a "special purpose" device, it is "general purpose". Apple absolutely has made a general purpose computing device, and people buy it with that intent (the lawyer of the special district I am elected to the board of seems to literally have an iPad as his only computer).
Yes, it’s general with respect to the functionality available - that doesn’t mean you can do anything. Do you disagree?
I don't understand how people can be shocked when Apple says their devices do A, B, C and D, but people complain and want government action so the devices do E.
The apple device does A, B, C, D, and E - but it requires you give apple a percentage of your revenue and not let you take money off app or they remove it. It's a general computing device as long as you pay apple's exploitative fees.
Most Android devices--and certainly all the good ones--are almost as locked down as iOS: Android has a bit more extensibility points, and sideloading has fewer restrictions, but it isn't like an Android device is some open "run anything you want" playing field (hell: the original Android G1 needed a jailbreak!!); and, really, if you analyze that market carefully, Samsung pretty much owns it with like 95% of the profit made across all vendors (and they have extra locked down devices).
Huh?... developer mode on an Android device doesn't even give you root access (which isn't that powerful these days due to SELinux), much less "infinite control": if you want to modify the lock screen or how notifications work or any other myriad things that Android doesn't provide extensibility points for, you need to jailbreak your device, just as you would for iOS. Some devices provide the ability to do an official "bootloader unlock", which actually gives you real control, but the vast majority do not.
(aside) The lack of basic understanding of how all of these restrictions work is so annoyingly pervasive that I have seriously been in arguments with people at conferences who are adamant about how open these Android devices are, and then when I challenge them what device they have they have a jailbroken Samsung on Verizon (the worst combo) and I have to walk them down memory lane to remind them of what exploit they must have downloaded (as I used to know most of the key players; I've taken a step back from the DEFCON scene, though, as the toxicity was getting to me).
Google, Samsung, Lenovo, and Nokia all support unlocking and flashing, including AOSP builds that are rootable. Yes, if you want to root your phones specific image you'll need to tweak it to support root.
Spotify doesn’t have to be available on Apple devices at all. The competition you’re describing already exists no?
There’s a contradiction in these arguments. Either Spotify benefits from Apple devices, in which case the fee is a cost of doing business that ultimately benefits them, or they don’t benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the platform.
It’s the same thing with the food delivery apps and other food apps. There are literally thousands of platforms like this. People should just leave if they don’t like the rules.
So Apple is forcing its customers to bundle their phone with their billing platform.
Which should be illegal (as we democratically decided to have these laws), having no choice in services is not a feature it's an additional price to pay for the product and customers legally didn't agree to that simply by buying a commodity phone (no contract, no consideration whatsoever for this additional price).
> People should just leave if they don’t like the rules.
This is correct, Apple should just get out if they don't like the anti-trust rules of our market.
No, you can't pay with any currency like Zimbabwean dollars and expect the EU to force businesses to accept it, no.
But this article isn't about legal tender or how debts can be repaid it's about anti-trust and coupling commodities (like bread, and phones) with exclusive services without a service contract at the moment of purchase.
Apple devices and services don't have to be available in Europe at all. Either Apple benefits from Europe, in which case they need to follow European rules and regulations, or they don't benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the EU.
Actually, yes, Spotify does have to be available on iOS devices if Spotify chooses to. Apple will be slapped with aggressive enforcement action if they pull something like that.
You're essentially saying if a crisp manufacturer wanted to sell in Asda, but Asda didn't want to sell them, Asda could be slapped with enforcement action for not selling the crisps?
That would be a huge breach of anti-monopoly laws - you are abusing dominant position in the market to fuck over your competition (on the music streaming market).
> Either Spotify benefits from Apple devices [...] or they don’t benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the platform.
Apple benefits from our society, and they've gamed their way into a Al Capone / Suez Canal / golden goose scenario. They've locked up everything under their control because they managed to weasel themselves into controlling 50% of the mobile phone market. This was, in retrospect, an illegal move.
Either Apple benefits from government-sanctioned commerce, or they don't. They can easily be broken up or fined into oblivion. The industry will move on regardless of what happens to Apple.
I don't care if Apple takes 90% I'm just tired of them telling people what software they're allowed to run. It makes everyone miserable even if they don't use the iPhone.
Most businesses must have mobile apps of some kind, and must support the two biggest options, iPhone and Android. So even if you don't own an iPhone, as a business owner there's a good chance you must make an iPhone app.
Also, the entire web has to maintain Safari compatibility because iOS devices can only browse via Safari's engine. Ironically, this is the only thing protecting us from a complete Chrome monopoly... so I'm kinda in favor of it, but it's a problem we need to address as well.
If there isn't a native client for iOS for a chat protocol then no one will use it. Apple has distorted chat over the internet so severely that there are many people who say they pick who they date partly based on whether or not they use iMessage for chat.
That's irrelevant. EU has already ruled previously that if you, as a company, reach more than 10% of EU's population(about 30M people) then no, you can no longer get away with just saying "my platform, my rules".
The easiest way to think about it is - John wants to sell Mark a product that works on Mark's iphone. Currently, John cannot do that without a) getting explicit permission from Apple b) giving Apple a substantial cut, regardless of whether John wants to use their services or not.
This is what EU(and hopefully US very soon) has a problem with - Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and by controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to use their billing, they stifle legitimate business and competition.
Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and by controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to use their billing, they give the customers what they want.
If iOS becomes the android wild west it'll kill the entire selling point of the iPhone.
To me, the iPhone is the equivalent of buying a games console instead of a gaming PC. Less flexibility, less to worry about.
>>If iOS becomes the android wild west it'll kill the entire selling point of the iPhone.
What always baffles me, truly leaves me flabbergasted and confused, is.....who is going to force you to use any other app store other than the Apple Store??
I'm on Android, and yes, there are other stores that exist - you can download the Amazon Fire store or many others, or even sideload apps......or......shocking......you can continue using the Play Store??? How is the mere existence of 3rd party stores going to affect your experience with the Apple Store?
>>To me, the iPhone is the equivalent of buying a games console instead of a gaming PC. Less flexibility, less to worry about.
Again, if you could load a game on your PS5 not from PSN, can you explain to me exactly how it would reduce your ability to only buy and download games available on the PSN?
>> What always baffles me, truly leaves me flabbergasted and confused, is.....who is going to force you to use any other app store other than the Apple Store??
Think of the new privacy controls: Facebook doesn't like them. So they open their own iOS store, circumventing all Apple rules concerning privacy labels and do not track status.
While I see the problem, I'm prepared to argue that it should have never been Apple's job to fix the inherent problems with Facebook. If an app is so bad for your privacy that you can only install it through a special dedicated app store.....then maybe that's enough to put people off? And even if it isn't.....well, I can't help it if people want to have shitty facebook tracking them. I'd definitely prefer that they have choice to install it themselves rather than they didn't, and regulatory bodies can regulate what data facebook can collect, not Apple.
I think it's pretty clear that the average person isn't actually aware of how invasive the data collection is, and their OS provider putting safeguards on the most common devices (phones) is a good thing imo.
If you want a general purpose computer, buy one. An iPhone isn't for that.
Well, again, the discussion isn't about an iPhone being a general purpose computer or not. It's about what happens if two sides want to engage in an otherwise completely legal business transaction(company A making apps for iOS and wanting to sell them to person B), and Apple saying "no, actually, we need to give you permission before you can do business together, and actually we'll have 30% cut from that thanks". That's where the issue is. Apple can safeguard their devices to the maximum possible extent - that is, to the point where they do not stand in the way of legitimate business transactions happening.
I've used this comparison elsewhere - it's as if a company X was making car mats that fit Mercedes models - and Mercedes wanted not only to have a say into whether company X should be allowed to do this, but also wanted a 30% cut from every transactions. Literally decades ago we made laws to prohibit manufacturers from doing exactly this. The question being asked now is - why not software platforms? What makes them so special? And yes, as a software programmer, I understand the technical issues behind this. And those issues can be presented to the courts - but as a society we need to decide if this is something we want to allow or not, this is what's happening now.
If you want to go the bad car analogy route: it's as if a company was making Mercedes car mats using the Mercedes logo and being surprised they have to pay a fee to sell them via the Mercedes dealer network.
But that's like saying that you shouldn't have more than one store per street, because they might stock exclusive items and that would be really annoying for customers to have to visit two stores for their shopping rather than one. Surely it's better to have only one store, even if it means your selection is limited by the store owner, think of all the inconvenience saved by not having any choice!
I'm being sarcastic of course, but I don't think it's that far off. Right now there are whole categories of apps that you simply cannot have as a customer(and which business cannot produce) because apple won't allow them. Not having choice is easier than having choice, sure.
And if - as an example - Epic releases Fortnite on their own store, rather than Apple store, and you as a customer don't want to go through the hassle of installing their store....then ultimately they lose out. But that's a business transaction then - if you want to buy something and the terms aren't convenient for yourself, then you just....don't.
Of course, but that's where it loops back to what I said about earlier EU ruling - if you own a platform that is used by more than 10% of EU population, then it's not good enough to just say "well, if you don't like it you can go somewhere else", because like I said in my first comment, Apple is inserting itself into business transactions that it maybe shouldn't be inserting itself into. I will say it again - if you have a company making an app for iOS, and customers willing to buy this app, why should apple have a say into whether it's allowed, and demand a 30% cut from every transaction?
Like, imagine if a company making car mats had to ask for permission from Mercedes to sell mats compatible with their cars. Or brake pads or oils or literally anything car related. We've regulated this through legislation years ago - manufacturers cannot say what is and isn't allowed with their cars post sale, they don't have that power. Why not software platforms next?
> Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and by controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to use their billing, they give the customers what they want.
Sorry, this is irrelevant. If people want a monopoly, that doesn't change the effects of that monopoly existing.
"Platforms that reach more than 10% of the EU's population (45 million users) are considered systemic in nature, and are subject not only to specific obligations to control their own risks, but also to a new oversight structure. This new accountability framework will be comprised of a board of national Digital Services Coordinators, with special powers for the Commission in supervising very large platforms including the ability to sanction them directly."
That has a simple answer: What banks / credit card companies take. Banks have to run infrastructure to transfer money and App Store have to run infrastructure for certain services like distribution, quality filtering, etc.
Why is it simple: Banks have settled this over (maybe) 100 years and have a (idealistically seen) competitive environment.
The core issue here is Apple favours their own product over competitors as they control their store. In this case, the product happens to be Music [0].
> The Commission is concerned that users of Apple devices pay significantly higher prices for their music subscription services or they are prevented from buying certain subscriptions directly in their apps.
This doesn't seem to be a general issue about the 30/15% charge. It's specific to products (in this case Apple Music) on the App Store where Apple has a competitor. This was bound to happen the moment Apple started launched their "services" strategy.
I wish they'd do something about Apple Arcade. The way it's aggressively promoted (slightly less aggressive now than at the beginning) would get any other developer permanently banned from the platform.
>Apple asserted that it is entitled to a verdict in its favor since the evidence does not "tend to exclude" the possibility that Apple acted in a manner consistent with its lawful business interests.
The more Apple have tried to strangle Spotify, the more I am determined to wait this out and get Spotify working properly on Siri and Watch.
Every time I accidentally say "Siri play ${song_name}" without appending "on Spotify" and Siri nonchalantly replies that it cannot find ${song_name} in my Apple Music library, I double down on my determination not to let them win!
Wasn't the default app thing declared a problem decades ago when Microsoft made you use IE? Why is Apple still allowed to force me to have Apple Music (and Apple Maps) as my defaults?
I have trouble reconciling complaints like this with the argument that Apple should charge for App Store something based on the cost of operating the store. How do you price the engineering hours and strategy risk that go into opening an Apple feature like Siri to 3rd parties? Should it only be users who pay for those costs through their hardware purchase? Certainly not, since it’s impossible to predict those costs over the 5-6 year life of a new iPhone.
I’m paying for those costs with my £1300 iPhone. Now I want to set whatever app as default that I like.
Also it isn’t like apple aren’t offering those features - I can play music on Spotify with Siri already. They are just putting deliberate annoying barriers in the way to make their own product appear better.
There’s no way you are paying for 5 years of software development and your hardware for $1300. Suppose half the cost of iPhone was to build the physical object (likely low, given Apple’s 35% overall gross margins), you’re effectively saying that iOS is worth $10/mo, which is a gross underestimate. It is at least as complex a piece of software as Creative Cloud which costs $30/mo. As another benchmark, premium Android phones cost about as much as iPhone, but all the development costs of Android are primarily borne by a different vendor than the device maker.
Developing a model for your voice assistant that can route requests to the right handler is non-trivial. I think in a forum of software developers, I shouldn’t have to argue that there are many good faith reasons for this.
Why should the most successful commercial operating system in history with ongoing, major annual updates be as cheap as an operating system that’s been in maintenance mode for almost a decade?
OK even if I accept your argument, I still don’t believe that gives apple the right to stifle their competition by forcing them to jump through arbitrary hoops. Like I’ve said - they are already giving Spotify access to Siri. They just make it deliberately painful. And as a software developer I really don’t think it would be remotely difficult to route calls for music to an alternative music app. They are already doing the hard work of deciding if a request is for music or something else.
By your logic Microsoft are also fine to force everyone to use internet explorer forever because they put so many hours into making windows.
I said nothing about the capabilities a platform provides. The point you are responding to is how to talk about a “fair price” for iOS, and who should pay for it. I don’t know why you bring up requirements about what interoperability platform providers should or must provide in this context.
I really wish this too. Unfortunately, I am not sure the anticompetitiveness of Apple's behaviour regarding web browser engines — and its implication on the entire app industry — has been brought to the attention of EU lawmakers...
For those not familiar with this issue, Apple is totally blocking browsers (like Firefox and Chrome) to use their own engine on iOS, preventing them to give web application access to native features, like push notification. Because of course, Apple won't add these features to their own engine (WebKit).
That way, they are forcing app developers to develop native iOS apps, which have to go through their App Store to be installed on iOS. By doing so, they can take the 30% commission fee on in-app purchases, and lock developers/companies in, because apps developed for iOS are not usable outside of Apple devices, of course.
Web (Chrome) developers often go on and on about this, but I have yet to hear a single layman user complain about their iOS version of Chrome missing the ability to have the random news websites they’ve followed from Facebook send them native notifications, take up the entire viewport, or be “installed” to their home screen.
Sure. Users don't even know it would be possible, and don't care about the tech anyway. What they care about however is how much they pay for apps, how much they pay for in-app purchases, and being able to switch freely from one platform to another.
Well, Apple's behaviour is impacting all this by forcing companies to develop native apps instead of web apps. Web apps (could) work anywhere, and cost a fraction of the cost of native apps.
This is clear, but only replaces the web developer’s perspective with the company’s, not the layman user’s.
In-app purchases and App Store purchases in general are already scraping the bottom of the barrel, we’re talking about the difference between $9.99 & <$7 at the higher end assuming everything works out. That absolutely matters, but much more to the sellers than the users.
We can imagine the thousands of needlessly native apps with a platform mandated 30% surcharge being transported onto the open web and into user devices free of interference. Hardware accelerated IG like filters writing to local disk in the background at 60fps, DRM protected 4k streaming with cheaper monthly subs, hobbyist forum sites on the home screen with PMs and replies pushing notifications alongside FB, the dream.
But Abuelita is going to experience the millions of individual pages relying exclusively on advertising revenue already twisted and contorted into profitable positions being given the green light for Notifications, Geolocation, Bluetooth, NFC, Network Info, Ambient Light, Idleness, Proximity APIs etc while she’s just trying to read about how Joe Biden is destroying the fabric of America.
To users it doesn't matter whether an app uses JS or Swift, only that it works smoothly and has all the features. It is in Apple's interest to keep web apps clunky, and forever less capable than their native platform.
If "Add to Homescreen" wasn't added in the pre-AppStore era, I don't think it'd happen. This feature has clearly been mothballed. Homescreen web apps were given a second-rate build of WebKit that has been been consistently slower and buggier than standalone Safari (I don't know if they've fixed it recently. Homescreen webapps that I worked on all gave in to the AppStore eventually).
Apple has the same fear as Microsoft had that powerful Web apps will make their native platform unnecessary. Microsoft made a mistake of abandoning Internet Explorer 6 entirely. Apple is smart enough to keep user-facing parts of their browser high quality, and only drag their feet on more advanced platform features. They forbid other browser engines, which magically makes Safari appear as technically capable as every other iOS browser.
> The fact that Apple refuses to implement basic features in mobile Safari that Firefox and Chrome have had for years now, and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps.
> I recently worked on a health app related to the COVID pandemic. The most common use case would be served really well by a PWA, and as such, there's no reason users would need to install an app on their phones to access the web app's full set of features.
> Despite the web app working perfectly on Android and across Windows, Linux and macOS without native integration, we now must dedicate time and resources to develop an additional iOS app just so iOS users, which over half of Americans are, aren't left out.
> This is an expensive endeavor time-wise and money-wise, during a pandemic where time is of the essence and resources are stretched thin. It shouldn't be this way, but it is.
I do. We have a device that creates its own Wi-Fi and serves a web app to interact with it. We have a lot of clients that would like to be notified when a new firmware is released for the device.
Another recent one, a customer on iOS 12 did not understand why he couldn't save a file generated on the device to his phone. I told him it's not possible, but he can save it to iCloud (without a correct name though). I got told off about how bad we must be not to support such a basic feature. Don't ask me mate.
I have also never known a single layman who complained about memory leaks. People don't complain about stuff they don't understand, but that doesn't mean the problems are not affecting them.
Another problem is that small problems affecting a large number of people do not have much vocal support, while their costs are still enormous. (As compared to problems that affect a minority a lot.)
There are exactly three browser engines of any note: Safari's, Chrome's and Firefox's.
iOS allows other browsers and doesn't allow other engines. And considering things like this: https://webapicontroversy.com/ I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone.
>I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone
There are more browsers that use Chromium engine and nobody forces you to install Google version. I understand the potential issue of a Chrome dominance but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features then you will no longer be forced to use an inferior browser.
> but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features
Did you even visit the link? Developers may want the moon. And yet both Mozilla and Apple consider those (and not only those) harmful for a bunch of reasons, the primary of which is privacy.
Apple could be smart and implement what real developers need and not what advertisers want. But good performance, and better APIs would mean you could avoid using native apps.
Once again: real developers may want a lot of things. I've seen developers want bluetooth and location APIs in the browser. And yet, both Apple and Mozilla (note: not just Apple) consider these APIs harmful as currently presented and specified and haven't found/can't find a way to implement them in a non-harmful way.
And these APIs are the most visible. There are many other APIs and features that don't make their way into WebKit not because Apple "doesn't listen to real developers", but because the specs are extremely poorly written, or contain known bugs, or can't be implemented efficiently, or...
The scary thing is, these days Firefox devs are increasingly often on WebKit's side (because whatever your opinion of Apple is, WebKit devs want the same thing that Firefox devs want: a safer web web for people with properly implemented features). Whereas Chrome just plows through (because Google's raison d'etre is the Web, and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google).
You will also find (if you only cared about this) that standards that Mozilla considers harmful (or at least thinks they have to be deferred) are mostly aligned with Apple's: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
>Just as camera and mic location access is hidden behind a specific permission dialog in case you didn't notice.
Of course I know, the hypocrisy is that you trust your grandma with the camera permissions but not with a permission for a music player to run when the screen is turned off or with a map/fitness tracking page to get access to your location. If Apple devs would be competent they could implement it in a secure way like the camera API (or maybe the devs are competent and the reasons not to do it are financial)
Dude, Safari is worse then Firefox, stop showing the USB example. Anyway screw this, Microsoft was foprced to show a browser choice screen and Apple will be forced to show the same, it will take a few years but tit will happen. If you are not in EU you will not be affected at all. Since US will still use the inferior browser still all websites will have to code for it and native apps will have to be made to workaround the limitations.
> the hypocrisy is that you trust your grandma with the camera permissions but not with a permission for a music player to run when the screen is turned off or with a map/fitness tracking page to get access to your location.
Ah, the tired old "your grandma" "argument".
> Dude, Safari is worse then Firefox, stop showing the USB example.
Yes, I know. "Apple bad, Safari bad" and no amount of evidence that both Safari and Firefox resist multiple standards forced by Google will convince you otherwise.
You're so blind to your own bias that you didn't even see that I never mentioned USB even once (even though it is one of "considered harmful by both Firefox and Safari").
Think of the grandma is the Apple fanboys defense of why shit should be locked and approved by Apple.
You are mentioning location APIs and I shown you that is not different then camera APIs and then you still show me the bluttoh/usb stuff. https://www.safari-is-the-new-ie.com
You are trying to defend something I did not ask you about, I don't care is f Safari will never implement JavaScript at all, or if they decide grandma can't be trusted with camera permissions, as long you can install a better browser that gives you access to better APIs.
I also mention for APIs that could let you make a competitive streaming app based in the browser, this is not about USB,bluetooth, VR or other APIs, so try fucking focusing on why you can't have a good music playuer in the browser? Is it impossible by the laws of nature to create such an API? or are the Apple devs incapable of implementing such an API in a safe way? or Apple users too stupid to give permissions , or maybe Apple wants money and a streaming service that is browser based means no tax ?
Yeah, Apple is perfect , Google Siri search for all the times Apple lost in justice class lawsuits and practice on those cases how Apple was not screwing those guys and the justice was wrong and "Apple goog, Apple good ..."
btw are you a Trump fanboy, you are talking a lot in his style.
Another reason I wish iOS devices, and some other computing devices, were not so locked down: preserving our environment and resources.
The hand-wavy argument is, perhaps these business models are legal, but I don't feel our social and environmental progress is at a point where we can afford to have companies create "disposable" devices - "disposable" in the "long-term" of course, I understand iOS devices for example are supported quite well compared to average. And there is the problem for me, I don't believe "better than average" should be a valid defense for this practice. Yes, companies are entitled to end support of their software, leaving vulnerabilities in browsers or the OS, but on a locked down device, that can drastically alter its usefulness and its lifetime. Allowing customers who bought a device to repurpose it by installing their software of choice should be a possibility. A quick aside, I (sort of) get Apple's 7-day limit on side-loading iOS apps with a free Apple developer account, but my gosh does that feel petty and creates a sad barrier for creating fun little apps for a small group of friends.
And this issue has some subtlety I think. More than my (naive?) arguments capture I'm sure. One aspect is I don't know if these ideas would preclude the security model on iOS, which I very much enjoy, to be fair. I understand security, flexibility and a great user experience can be hard to integrate together, especially in an intuitive matter, but I wish Apple - and others - would try to find other creative solutions to some of these problems and trade-offs.
Another aspect is where to draw the "general computing device" line which would compel a manufacturer to have, somehow, a "long-term open device". Perhaps this would backfire and Apple would start trying to make a "non-general" computing device to avoid this sort of rule.
I just wish we could have it all of course: a great security model, ease of use but the flexibility to use hardware as we wish 10 years down the line. Hopefully people working at all these companies want this too, and I can keep dreaming.
1. it gatekeeps what's in the App Store. This is of course controversial but is a net positive for consumers (IMHO); and
2. It provides a convenient payments infrastructure.
I certainly hope no government forces Apple to allow third-party App stores. Just look at what a mess this is on the PC where there are a million launchers (eg Steam, Epic, Ubisoft, Rockstar) and nearly all of them are terrible.
(2) also has value, even for big companies. There are definitely people who buy things (including subscriptions) on Apple devices because of the ease of doing so. Remember that cut also does include credit card processing fees so that sets the floor at 1-2% not 0%. That's still a lot less than 30% of course. And I think this is particularly egregious for recurring charges like Spotify in this case.
This is why I was utterly confused by Apple's move last year to lower the cut for small developers only. This is the complete reverse of what they should do. It's clear that the winds are blowing towards government intervention here so Apple should be looking to control the narrative and deciding what compromise looks like.
If Apple had come out and said that if you process more than $10m/year then their cut was 10% of initial purchases and 5% of recurring charges do you honestly think that Spotify or Epic or anyone else would be suing them or seeking government intervention to anywhere the same degree?
Apple (and Google) are just holding on too tight to the 30% cut and they're not reading the (antitrust) room.
Dude you can buy same game Cyberpunk on at least 3 different stores, what is wrong in the fact you have a choice?
Sure you have some bad examples with some of EA games or other exclusives but only a retard would say "I wish only Steam existed because I love Valve screwing me so everyone should learn to love it")
I don't blame Epic or EA either, why should they pay Valve a 30% tax when they can build a store and not throw money away. But I am against exclusives, EA or Epic should put their shit in all stores but on their own stores they could make things cheaper or offer other benefits.
Choice is bad because Apple consumers prefer to be forced to only do things the Apple way (like when you couldn't transfer a file via Bluetooth between an ipad and iPhone because at the time Apple wanted you to use a computer, yet it worked fine transferring to an Android phone. Took me a while to figure that one out)
> Just look at what a mess this is on the PC where there are a million launchers
Which has resulted in some much needed competition for Steam, particularly around dev cuts.
Also just look at macOS, would anyone really prefer to only be able to install mac apps from the Mac App Store?
Would the benefits of forcing users and devs through the Mac App Store outweigh the benefits of users being able to install whichever software they wished?
Users sideloading apps on their phones is likely to be a benefit to like 5,000 people and an attack vector for 3 billion.
As for Steam, you don't have to use it as a game publisher, as in you could always sell physical media (up until the past few years) or a download. As a consumer I'll pretty much always prefer buying a game through Steam. I hate all these other launchers that you have to now use for like one title because they suck.
This same "me too" philosophy is ruining online content distribution where once Netflix was so good. Just look at the difficulty in finding out if a given movie or TV show is on any of your services. There's really no good way to do that. I've seen websites that try but they also include Amazon, Google Play and iTunes where you can buy that content when all I'm interested in is where it streams for free. It just sucks.
Apple can handle it. They could just put enough stringent protections at the OS layer against malicious apps. Not to mention, any sideloading feature would be well guarded from within the interface so that no one other than power users would actually find it and enable it.
> This same "me too" philosophy is ruining online content distribution where once Netflix was so good.
Ease of service does not justify monopoly.
> Just look at the difficulty in finding out if a given movie or TV show is on any of your services.
It is indeed annoying, but that's not so much an issue directly caused by competition between different streaming services, so much as the studios/networks hoarding their IP. Even if Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. never existed, you'd still see efforts like HBO Max, Peacock from NBC, Paramount Plus from CBS, etc. to try to monopolize their own IP by keeping it off of Netflix.
Apple could just stop offering own apps. Utility companies are often regulated similarly - in many countries you can be either an energy producer or grid, not both.
This same idea comes up with Google search results.
For example, if you search for "mortgage calculator" you get a widget you can use directly. If you click on any of the links it takes forever to load (because it's loading 137 different tracking cookies), you're prompted to sign up to their newsletter, there are ads, the calculator is spread across multiple pages (because, hey, that's more impressions) and so on.
It's a terrible user experience.
So my point is a blanket ban of "competing" is likely to be worse for the consumer.
For this example, Apple has a lot of experience with music, a lot of deals in place and developed the iTunes ecosystem. I don't have an issue with them trying to sell a subscription music service. A blanket ban on this seems like an overreaction.
Why do people compare luxury phone products to utilities lol. Do people honestly believe access to electricity and to iPhones are in any way comparable?
Because sometimes you have no choice then build a mobile app and you have to build it for what your customers use, I can't ask my customers to switch to some Linux phone or PC because I have the choice to build only Linux stuff.
From the POV of users I would like to see soemthing to make it easy to escape the lockin, like to be able to keep your movies and apps.
Why should a percentage of businesses be relevant?
If I want to deliver food can I ask my customers to use a Linux PC because I only have a Linux app? Can you tell your customers that your website only works on Safari?
As a company you have to implement what the customers want, not what you want. Apple controlling the market means you have to (even if you are not forced by a law of nature) make sure your webiste works on Apple devices and if customers want/need mobile apps (maybe because it needs access to native APIs or other shit that you can't do from a web page) you need to have an iOS and an Android app.
Apple is not forced to sell in EU either, they will fight this but they are doomed to fail and I think the US is also locking into this, and you also have the right to repair movement that would hopefully also force Apple to do the right thing,
> If I want to deliver food can I ask my customers to use a Linux PC because I only have a Linux app? Can you tell your customers that your website only works on Safari?
Sure why not?
Businesses don’t have to do anything. They can and do support things arbitrarily and customers choose which business to engage with based off those decisions.
Apple and Google are following the same rules. Hopefully those rules change, but I doubt it.
I do understand business. You understand that customers are free to move on if they don't like a business' practices right? There are business's today whose websites only work on certain browsers, so I don't know what you're going on about to begin with.
>You understand that customers are free to move on if they don't like a business'
False. Not when there is a monopoly or the cost is too big(do you need examples? or definitions?)
>There are business's today whose websites only work on certain browsers
Sure, show me more then one excpetion of a company that made a web product from scratch in the latest 10 years and their product supports ONLY a browser with less then 50% market share.
But if you REALLY think(and not trolling) that a real business like restaurant/gym/parking place/shop can support only Linux phones then stop replying , just buy a iPhone from US when the EU version will be unlock-able.
That’s not really the analogous situation. More like Samsung takes a 30% cut on apps on its Tizen platform. Surely you’d just change TVs no? Or not buy it to begin with?
If the outcome of this is that they are rquired to enable app installation from sources that are not just their app store, then Apple will likely have a customer from me.
Think about it, if they are required to support third party app stores, they might as well enable sideloading. Else someone will form an app store where you submit an app just to download it to your phone. Or maybe that testflight feature is made cross platform and more permanent?
I like 90% of the Apple ecosystem (they could tone down the constant rule exemptions for themselves), but side-loading is a requirement. Now that jailbreaking iPhones up to the X is possible again (checkra1n) it's fairly likely that I will buy one.
Sadly, there is already quite some backlash, mostly coming from Apple aficionados. And I say "sadly" because it is always sad to see how people would try to defend companies and brands, against their own interests.
I think we may agree that, when Apple and Google do not subject their own services to the standards they use for the competition, thus giving themselves a certain advantage, such competition may be hurt and, eventually, it may also disappear. That would not be the first time, either.
Then you may argue if it is in the public interest to let companies compete at all or not.
If 30% goes to Apple AND the quality & privacy of every app was high and secure, as they boast, I wouldn't mind - but it is not. So I wonder what Apple ARE doing with that 15%-30% because it is not quality control or tight privacy across the board.
The figure will come down to 10%-20%, and we can move on.
If I was Tim Apple, probably allow third party payment providers (from a list of Apple-approved providers that have to handle disputes, unsubs etc in an approved way). And then charge a per-download fee to apps which offer in-app subscriptions without using Apple's payment option.
It would inevitably lead to claims that alternative app stores should be permitted but it solves the present problem and pushes the second issue a good few years into the future (given the speed that these inquiries move at)
For sure, but it seems like most law makers are easily distracted by some mirrors and a bit of smoke. I'm not sure the EU won't be, but that we've gotten this far provides some hope.
Margrethe Vestager (the european commissioner for competition since 2014) is not that kind of fool, if you look at her history since she got that job. And since 2019 she's also been named "President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age" so I think this matter is not something she will ignore easily.
She's one of the absolute best thing to happen to the EU, and has proven to be willing to do what it takes to protect competitivity on the market.
On HN she's often seen in tech news and thus could appear to be "against US companies only" but far from it, eg in 2019 she blocked the giant merger of Alstom and Siemens trains divisions against the will of both the German and French government.
They cut the 30% tax down in some cases(I am still waiting for the fanboys to admit that this would never had happened if not for the large number of investigations running).
Next will probably give to EU guys a convoluted way to unlock you phone but will shame you for it, probably put a watermark on a screen that you are a communist or pedo if you use the unlock device feature.
Apple needs a Microsoft moment, a moment where they realize what are their strengths and focus on that and stop with the FUD and anticompetitive bullshit.
> Next will probably give to EU guys a convoluted way to unlock you phone
This is the end game. Jailbreaking should be a supported feature. What they'll actually do is most likely expanding features for side-loading with enterprise certificates, improving solutions like Alt Store.
I disagree with supported. I think jailbreaking is in good place right now. No company should be force to fix phones that we cause harm to due to breaking into, but companies should also not be allowed to claim that that alone is the reason a product is broken without evidence.
I can’t imagine being forced to support a misuse of a product I develop outside of the scope Of it’s advertised intentions if it directly leads to the products deterioration.
Mobile carriers were locking their devices and even if you owned the phone you had to pay some guy to unlock it for you to use it with other carriers(or buy a new phone). Unlocking the device was just a software thing, no risk to cause problems . Companies were forced to give you the code to unlock the device(if you own it) and now the devices are already unlocked(not sure if is a law or companies realized that it was a stupid idea to lock stuff by default if I buy it and then have to implement an unlock customer support line . And it makes sense, you just hate the company more if you feel they are malicious and lock you.
I think a lot of people are missing the important development here. This is not about having a monopoly in phones, or in the music industry. This is about a monopoly within the market Apple has created.
> Our preliminary finding is that Apple exercises considerable market power in the distribution of music streaming apps to owners of Apple devices. On that market, Apple has a monopoly
The issue is that Apple is leveraging their dominant position to push a Spotify competitor. Apple Music is not subject to the 30% App Store fee, and so they can just simply undercut Spotify by 30%.
Going with your analogy, is BMW trying to push an Apple CarPlay competitor?
If supporting alt-monetized apps in AppStore will be too much for Apple, then they should allow AppStore alternatives or start charging hosting/processing fees.
If paying through AppStore will be more expensive than paying in some other way, then Apple should lower the fees.
Just needs some form of competitive pressure to get the ball rolling.
Would you be okay with allowing alternative payments methods if Apple still billed you 30% of your revenue rather than collecting it at the point of sale?
Because if no then it is about the fee and not the payment processing.
Not sure I follow. What would justify this 30% cut in this case? The fact that they are forcing all app installs to be done through the AppStore? A fair fraction of vendors don't need that the exact same way they don't need payments to be funneled through Apple. It's Apple's choice. No reason why the vendors should be forced to pay for it.
Yes, this. Except they won't allow alternative payment forms for everything, but try to restrict it to as little as the commission lets them get away with.
Microsoft is an applicable precedent here - when it was found that they had breached competition law in using bundling with Windows as a way to gain unfair market dominance for Internet Explorer, the remedy was to require that Microsoft offer users a means to select and download competing browsers on first use. The Commission can then fine them a significant amount if they fail to comply with the decision.
Of the options you've suggested, the second seems most likely.
One potential solution that may also work is instead of not taking the 30% fee, to allow Spotify and others to take payment through another channel (e.g. by bouncing users to a web-based payment gateway) - the enforcement there just becomes an injunction to not enforce the app review rules that prevent affected apps from using third-party payment providers in addition to or as an alternative to payment through the App Store.
The difficulty will be where they draw the line. A lot of third party services compete with built-in apps/OS features: for instance, Dropbox/iCloud Storage, Notes/Evernote, Office 365/Google Docs/iWork. The difference between Apple Music and Spotify (and presumably also Tidal and Deezer etc.) is really clear, but quite where you divide up these markets is a real tough issue in EU competition law. An Apple Music user could very easily be a Spotify user and vice versa, but not every iCloud user would necessarily be a Dropbox user.
Something which is unintuitive is that the 30% payment fee does not advantage Apple as much as it seems. Converting a customer to Apple Music from Spotify can't increase Apple's profit by more than what Spotify lost. You have to consider that the App Store's revenue will be reduced by that 30% cut if they are not charging that to the Apple Music department.
I presume Apple could get out of the music business too. From a profit standpoint that would be the best alternative for them, there's no real money in it. That is, if the EU would let them get away with just doing that.
* Remove the requirement to use Apple for IAPs
* Allow users to install software from third parties, including app stores.
* Introduce an active choice ballot.
* Force Apple to divest the App Store into a separate company that is forbidden from entering into exclusivity arrangements with hardware platforms.
* Forbid clauses that require price fixing, or informing consumers of other purchase options.
I think security is a valid consideration as well. The average non-technical iPhone user would not be hard to hoodwink into installing a 3rd party App Store full of malware.
Agree, revenue is probably the primary driver.
The (real) reason to forbid sideloading is that it opens your customers up to the malware sewer that is Android. If sideloading is allowed it would take about 30 seconds for Facebook to create their own 'store' where the only product is Facebook apps with tracking turned on and data pilfering turned up to 11. You would see similar fly-by-night 'malware r' us' stores pop up pushing casinos, lotteries, and whatever other crap they can A/B test which shows that users with few technical skills can be tricked into using/installing.
Happy to have 3rd party payment options as long as it prevents sideloading.
How should Apple charge for the costs of building and maintaining SDKs for 3rd parties? There are plenty of UIKit SPI that undoubtedly took a lot of investment to turn into API. Apple also seems to spend considerable development resources building API which simply would not need to exist if there weren’t third parties on iOS (e.g. IDFA and its associated controls). Sometimes they likely have to develop new technology, such as 3rd party integrations with Siri or CoreAudio. Finally, there’s also the maintenance burden of API which Apple no longer uses but third parties do. I’m sure there’s more work in providing a platform; this is just what I can think of as examples for now.
Who should pay for this work? How would you go about accounting for it when calculating the “cost” of operating App Store? Is it fair to say that all this cost should be capitalized into the hardware price of an iPhone, given that most customers use only a small subset of the features on iOS? Should developers be charged by API call, similar to the business model of a cloud platform?
Ah yes, developing APIs wouldn't be possible if every software maker didn't give them a 30% rent on their revenue !
Except Windows had already proved it's false. Those APIs are investment, you factor their r&d costs into the cost of your product, so the buyers of ios devices are already paying for that.
You are arguing a straw man, and it’s quite obvious the price of hardware doesn’t cover the cost of iOS development because iPhones don’t cost much more than Android flagships, where the smartphone maker gets the OS for nearly free (and with little after-sales support!).
You are weirdly confused trying to compare two different things. Apple's financial results are public and you should check them because you will see that they make a massive amount of profit on their iphones, and they actively separates those numbers from their "services" (appstore and icloud) numbers.
Apple themselves disagree with you in their financial statement.
It’s really unclear what your point is or how you are engaging with my question about accounting for the “costs” of running the 2nd most successful application platform in history, after the web. It is undoubtedly much higher than the cost of running a store, but how much?
iPhone gross margins are about 35%. Even if it was a loss leader, $350 for five years of iOS is obviously underpriced, so I’m not sure what you mean with your reference to financial statements.
Every major release of Windows costs over $100, and iOS has a major release annually. Trying to compare iOS and Windows without any adjustments whatsoever is almost comical.
I think the legal question should be from the consumer perspective similar to purchased movies: Do I buy an apple device or am I renting it? (note: I'm not trying to answer it) Buying a product suggests to end users a specific set of benefits. If the assumption is far from usual we might have to stop describing the transaction as a purchase. For example: There are no apps for the iphone4 available in the store while they certainly exist. Perhaps its fair to ask: Why is there no support for android apps on iphones?
If it is owners of Apple devices, isn't that by definition their own prerogative. Like if they didn't have app store at all and had only used their apps, would Spotify still complain?
I can empathise with both sides. 30% is too high and Apple have costs and want to make money.
But my question is: if apple are to be running the App Store at cost are devs okay to pay for their apps? Let’s say you have a free app but now you have to pay a fee for App Store maintenance and that would be on every download and every app update. Are developers actually ok with that? Is that a fee that the users will bear?
Honestly not looking to pick a fight just asking on opinions.
Not an expert but i believe all they pay is the $100 apple developer fee every year to be able to publish apps... 30% seems to only be for apple payments like subscriptions and app purchases
They should fine apple some reasonable percentage of their global revenue for this. Otherwise they will continue these user hostile anti competitive practices.
I wouldn't mind Apple taking a 30% cut if they at least allowed devs to mention that users can sign up directly through the app developer's web site.
And also if they allowed alternate app stores. I'm find with have a (badly) curated walled garden with arbitrary & whimsically enforced rules if, like a PC, users had alternate channels for obtaining software.
Like many too-big-to-fail outfits, Apple and Google's products are so ubiquitous in our life. Since they both never actually have a finished software product, it is difficult (if not impossible) to even evaluate it. We’re stuck waiting for their update, as the answer to any problem or question. They’re Bill and Teding us with their ability to manufacture reality
It would be in the common good if antitrust control were far stronger than it actually is.
If it were up to me, Google would be compelled to provide clearly visible links to other search engines and other Android app stores just as Microsoft was compelled to allow for different browser selection in the past, and Apple would be compelled to do allow different app stores for iOs.
Many people support apple in questioning the business model of Facebook on cross app/site tracking. I think she this is my opinion that apple should not be allowed to put themselves without recourse between businesses and the customers. The customer should always have a choice.
Not related to this, but I got locked out of my apple account few days ago, this means : loose of everything I bought, cannot update any software. Only way to retrieve said account was trough a SMS system that was locked on a non mobile phone. They nicely allowed me after to use my email account for it (which was already linked), and promptly asked me to a new number.
To my surprise, this account status went back to it's original state (which mean I STILL have to re-do all of this process) and I'm still locked out of it.
But they took my money, they took my phone number. And they are happily locking me out every few because they basically do wtf they want.
I'm not buying any apple product anymore and I'm making sure everybody I know about knows about it. This company is a lie. These people are doing racketing in day light.
iOS customers are far higher income and spend more money - they're way more valuable. You get more revenue per user with way lower support costs. From a demographic standpoint it's a no-brainer.
Hence why Apple thinks that they can get away with charging 30% just for access to the platform. I’m really having a hard time understanding the other side of this argument. Apple largely keeps to themselves and doesn’t mess with other markets.
Competition among products on the shelves of Kroger seems like such a silly thing.
Great to hear this! Another win for the EU.
Finally someone defends the right of the developers, and at least tries to put a stop to Apple and it's hug of death.
Microsoft had the same issues, and it is only natural and fair Apple goes through the same process.
The only thing that puzzles my brain is the people here STILL defending Apple and it's monopoly practices by implying everything is a free choice.
If I offer you only two choices, you don't really have a lot of "free choices".
So, the EU will make a big fuss, lump Apple with a huge fine, which in the grand scheme of things amounts to a slap on the wrist, and then what? Apple will be forced to lower their fees, but i'm sure they'll come up with another creative way to fleece off app store vendors.
Sigh. I wonder if they're not already selling information to Facebook after releasing ios 14.5...
The difference between EU and Apple is EU makes laws, and Apple makes guidelines. Here are my definitions:
Guidelines: Do not break these. If you break these, your business will be crushed, the app removed for the app store.
Law: Break them when they make financial sense. For large corporations, it makes sense to break relevant laws. e.g. GDPR.
In replying to zibzabs comment/ Unpopular opinion: Yes, they still did it because it makes financial sense. (see the definition of law above)
All this says is that the ramifications for breaking these laws are not big enough. I fully agree. More laws should state a percentage of global turnover as fine. Also, start sending managers to prison for this and you will see changes pretty fast.
Nice of those companies that offered you the option, though I expect that they track you if you are from US with all those 100+ partners and not even inform you.
It's crazy to me how nobody seems to have copied the lucrative app store model. Why isn't there a service that reviews websites and programs to give them a "trust" rating?
I mean , for other stuff, like desktop or web apps. Reviewed and checked to rigorous usability and safety standards. Apple claims that this service is worth 30% of a program's cost
Let’s not act like this is some “principles” based discussion. The only reason for the EU getting into this is that spotify is european and Apple isn’t
iOS is a choice. Android is a choice. Neither is a choice. Back in the day, we had Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile among others to choose from.
The decisions made by the respective companies affected adoption and now we’re left with Android and iOS for now.
People compare phone choice to things like electricity and water which makes no sense.
Let’s ignore Apple and Google specifically here. Is the argument that all platforms should accommodate all users and use cases for free? Is the argument that companies should have a gap on profit margins?
Do we really want the government involved in all minutiae? Can’t we just vote with our wallet. The top 1000 app developers could just figure something out and move to a new platform if the money issues are too much no?
I’m happy to have a discussion on this with anyone who replies.
A. This market is a duopoly so there is limited opportunity to vote with your wallet.
B. Neither is not really a choice for most people.
C. It is one thing if Apple wants to charge a percentage of revenue to use their app store. But they have made it against the rules to: allow side loading, allow alternative app stores, link to a web payment option in one of their apps, and even to mention that they charge 30% of the revenue for in app purchases. That is clearly anti competitive.
> A. This market is a duopoly so there is limited opportunity to vote with your wallet.
This was not always the case. What’s stopping a competitor from defeating both Apple and Google? Windows Mobile had a peak market share of about 42%, higher than what Apple has in the EU.
My response to B is the same to A.
Regarding C what is an acceptable percentage - how did you come up with that number? Apple has been pretty transparent about the rules - why buy if you don’t like?
No. "Apple blocked Facebook from informing users that Apple would collect 30 percent of in-app purchases made through a planned new feature, Facebook tells Reuters. Apple said the update violated an App Store rule that doesn’t let developers show “irrelevant” information to users"
That’s a related, but separate issue. My point is that app developers know about the fees. Apple doesn’t hide them.
The issue you’re describing is more of whether Apple should allow App Store developers display messages to the end user of their apps saying that Apple is skimming off the top. Similar to how it would be if Apple said Visa will take 2% or whatever.
That makes sense for Apple but not for the Apple users, users pay more so users lose and Apple wins, this shit does not fly in other countries.
For example for currency exchanges we had laws(in Romania) that you have to print in giant fonts all the fees/taxes. The law was created because the giant text was showing some values and the fees were hidden or printed in small fonts somewhere unreadable.
IMO aa country could force Apple to print on their iPHone boxes something like (30% of your subscriptions or Farmwill gems go to Apple, buyer be aware that you can probably buy the subscriptions cheaper on the developer website but Apple won't allow them to show you the link because they are greedy)
If Apple users were harmed by this they would change platforms, no? Apple didn't always have phones, nor were they always a big presence in computing. Presumably they're doing something right, which is why people are buying their stuff.
But that's the problem. Smart phones have a high level of friction to change operating systems. The phones are expensive and there is a decent amount of platform lock in. If developers want to have a profitable business they pretty much need to build for iOS or Android.
The developers are creating value for Apple by improving their app ecosystem but Apple is acting like they are doing the developers a favor.
I used to think it was fair. Then I learned that Apple provides exceptions only to some Apps through some sketchy backroom process. [1] Apps that don't directly compete with their products. Enough exceptions to popular apps to minimize push back. If Apple applied this tax universally, with universal acceptance, then it would be a fair "users vote with their wallet" situation. Because a majority of popular apps would immediately refuse their changes and collectively remove themselves from their platform. Then we can decidedly vote with our wallets.
This would be correct only in a actual free market, now you have 2 players that split the market equally and are smart enough to know how to win in the prisoner dilemma game.
Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ?
Give a price to be listed in store, to be reviewed, to be downloaded by a user, ... And let company pay what they owe you. Let them pay through the provider they can negotiate and then pay you back the cost they owe you.
It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the same in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me. Their current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for services and infrastructure usage, it's setup like a tax.