Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#41

Post by Todd »

danShumway wrote: post #18
alienreborn wrote: post #7

Relevant article by former App Approval Chief at Apple: https://medium.com/@phillipshoemaker/apple-v-everybody-59030...

From the article: > Target, for example, is a standard, old-school brick and mortar shop. You go to find specific products and walk up and down aisles. When you find something that interests you, you don’t purchase it through that product. Instead you bring it to the Target checkout clerk, and they will charge you for it. And believe me, Target gets their fair share of the purchase of that item. If Target finds that…

The analogy sounds good, up until the product has stickers telling you to purchase this item from Amazon. That's disingenuous. The stickers in this analogy would tell customers that they can go to the product's own web site to register for a subscription. That's what Apple doesn't allow.

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#42

Post by gowld »

bilbo0s wrote: post #27
tguedes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it contradicts it. Apple claims that it does not set the price, the developers do. That's what they mean when they are just the intermediary, they facilitate the transaction but are not part of it. I think his example is poor because Target does set the prices on products, for the most part. I think something better would be a flee market. The flee market operators provide services to facilitate the s…

Just as a point of precision, Target does not technically set the price of any given manufacturer's goods. What they do when you get to that point in your talks with them, (and only if you're not ginormous), is to strongly suggest that you sell your product at such and such price. If you don't, they're gonna walk and sign on your competitor instead. It's devilishly ingenious, because, as I found out the hard way, in…

What do you mean? Target doesn't by wholesale and resell? They don't sell products for their own revenue, and pay for those products as an expense? Is the retail sale price a factor in the computation of how much the wholesale provider is paid?

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#43

Post by gowld »

elliekelly wrote: post #15
adgasf wrote: post #3

Apple needs to allow you to change the default apps (similar to how you can change the keyboard) for this argument to hold up.

Exactly. I would even go a step further, considering Microsoft’s antitrust issues from tying Netscape to the Windows OS: most of the iPhone’s preloaded default applications shouldn’t be there at all. Ideally users would be prompted at setup whether they’d like to install the Apple version.

IE, not Netscape. And didn't history show that shipping a default browser in the OS (which can be used to install additional alternate browsers) wasn't so bad after all?

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#44

Post by xvector »

balabaster wrote: post #21
zepto wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they allow enough In app purchases not to go through the store then they have no way to collect money from anyone, Since all apps could then just collect their money that way. If you limit it only to an anointed group of large companies then you have formed a cartel, which itself is likely illegal.

They could do something like Microsoft has with Azure where you have an Enterprise Agreement whereby you pay some licensing fee and then they allow companies to route through their own payment gateways to make for a better user experience. People say Apple care about the user, but they don't, they care only insofar as ensuring lock in. They don't care if you hate Apple, just so long as you keep giving them your money…

> People say Apple care about the user, but they don't, they care only insofar as ensuring lock in. They don't care if you hate Apple, just so long as you keep giving them your money. As long as you don't hate them enough to leave, they've done enough

Welcome to every service platform ever.

If you build the platform, there is no reason you should not have control over it and profit from it. You are not providing a public service. You are providing a private storefront on a private platform.

This is like if I had a lemonade stand in my backyard, and people walked in and started complaining that the lemonade I sell is marked-up and too expensive, and that they should be allowed to build their own lemonade stands in my backyard. And that I should provide them with the tools to do so.

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#45

Post by anfilt »

2 things I really hope from this. Apple can no longer block side-loading, and the dumb restriction on browser engines goes away, but I guess I will see how this law suite goes.

Also It's hilarious how they claim it's competitive. You can only install one app store.

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#46

Post by wayoutthere »

bitpush wrote: post #26
wayoutthere wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree with this argument, and here’s why: Apple’s brand across the board is about controlling every aspect of the user experience so they can make it a cohesive experience the user enjoys. They do this at the expense of short-term monetary gains from things like advertising, and don’t give a damn about making life difficult for their business partners. This is not the result of their success but likely the…

Are we justifying potentially illegal behavior by saying "that's their brand" and it helps them get wealthy in the long run? Monsanto does the same with seeds. They do RnD, develop seeds and force farmers to buy seeds directly from them, control end to end and probably produce higher-yield crops with lesser diseases. It is their "brand" but should we justify that behavior?

I think we simply need to look at the iPhone as a platform on its own. Sure, they own a sizable chunk of the market, but so does Android. People are free to develop on Android, it’s just they don’t as often because Android made some platform decisions that for whatever reason caused people to not make App Store purchases.

There is a choice in platforms — but the monetization situation on the Android platform makes it unattractive to developers for whatever reason. Why are users more willing to spend money buying apps on Apple’s store than Google’s? I suspect it is because of Apple’s stringent App Store screening process. Yeah, it sucks ass for developers but again, this is Apple’s MO. Apple takes care of their end users, Google takes care of their business partners (and this is a pretty consistent theme across both companies and apparent in their approach to product support).

I often find this is useful if followed up with another question: Is there a market for tablets, or is there just an iPad market? Would the entire model have been as successful without Apple’s approach? Remember, Windows tablets and netbooks had hyped and fizzled long before the iPad. Would it have gotten off the ground before fragmenting the user experience into a thousand pieces?

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#47

Post by writepub »

Retric wrote: post #8
MBCook wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government (for example) doesn’t care about Apple’s world wide market share, they care about the US. And in the US Apple’s market share is MUCH higher.

Still 10% below Android though.

Not according to [1]. Install base of iOS is higher in the US

[1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat...

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#48

Post by xvector »

pwinnski wrote: post #19
just_myles wrote: post #16

" (Apple takes a 30 percent cut of subscriptions for the first year a customer is signed up and 15 percent for each year thereafter." That is a considerable amount of paper.. How do you make any money when their cut is so high? Anybody with experience? I wonder how this shakes out annually with an app like Netflix.

Netflix doesn't give up 30% or 15%. It's listed as an example of a "Reader" app, so Netflix subscriptions take place entirely outside of Apple's infrastructure[0] and therefore Apple get zero of that money. > How do you make any money... The remaining 70%/85% is a pretty good start. As they say before that point, "developers have earned more than $120 billion worldwide" [0] The point Apple glosses over here is that N…

> The point Apple glosses over here is that Netflix isn't even allowed to provide a link back to their site for subscribing within the app, which seems difficult to defend.

How is it difficult to defend? If I am selling my product in a Target, I am not allowed to put stickers all over it telling people to buy it from Amazon instead. No reasonable storefront would allow this, really.

Re: Apple’s defense of the App Store just shows how hard it is to compete with Apple

#49

Post by mcphage »

zepto wrote: post #12
mcphage wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also allow apps to allow purchases inside without going through Apple's in-app purchases. Maybe they need to decide on a case-by-case basis, or maybe only for apps for companies with a large external presence, but not being able to buy eBooks through the Kindle app, because Apple wants it to go through their own in-app purchases instead of Amazon's own payment gateway, is frustrating.

If they allow enough In app purchases not to go through the store then they have no way to collect money from anyone, Since all apps could then just collect their money that way. If you limit it only to an anointed group of large companies then you have formed a cartel, which itself is likely illegal.

They could start with a specific list of allowed uses:

* purchasing a physical item * purchasing an electronic item accessible outside of the app * subscribing to a service accessible outside of the app * purchasing things through the app owner's own payment gateway

And then expand from there as necessary. Probably the restrictions would need to be tighter than that, but something along those lines.

Post reply on HN