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

51–57 of 57 posts

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

#51

Post by ProAm »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #34
alienreborn wrote: post #7

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

I feel strongly that his comparison to Target doesn't really apply. Shopping at Target can be compared to browsing the App Store, but it should not be compared to In App Purchases. When you install an app from the App Store, Apple obviously is involved because they are providing the marketplace. It's like walking up to the cashier at Target and paying for a laptop. Of course Target gets a cut, it's their store. But a…

The comparison to Target doesnt apply at all because I can go buy the same product from Target at Walmart or Bestbuy or etc..... Sure Target makes money off of the item but I do not have to choose shop at Target unless Im buying a Target brand item.

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

#52

Post by Ourotica »

If you think it's tough dealing with Apple, try running an app that allows adult content.

We're not allowed in the app store, we're not welcome on any major payment platform, and thanks to Apple dragging their heels on PWA support in Safari, we don't have any access to push notifications (or most of the other major native features).

The vast majority of our traffic is on iOS, but we're completely locked out from providing a native experience thanks to Apple's bullshit policies.

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

#53

Post by ppeetteerr »

Ourotica wrote: post #52

If you think it's tough dealing with Apple, try running an app that allows adult content. We're not allowed in the app store, we're not welcome on any major payment platform, and thanks to Apple dragging their heels on PWA support in Safari, we don't have any access to push notifications (or most of the other major native features). The vast majority of our traffic is on iOS, but we're completely locked out from prov…

The policies are everywhere

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18644537/google-marijuana...

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

#54

Post by zepto »

mcphage wrote: post #49
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 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.

Some of those already allowed.

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

#55

Post by zepto »

damnyou wrote: post #37
zepto wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, any manufacturer who doesn’t produce a commodity is automatically a monopolist.

Not just any arbitrary one, but certainly one that is big enough is a monopolist. This seems obviously true to me. The big insight from Lina Khan's work is that harm to consumer welfare is sufficient but not necessary for an entity to be a monopoly. Bigness itself is a problem for society.

What’s the definition of bigness in this work?

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

#56

Post by damnyou »

zepto wrote: post #55
damnyou wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just any arbitrary one, but certainly one that is big enough is a monopolist. This seems obviously true to me. The big insight from Lina Khan's work is that harm to consumer welfare is sufficient but not necessary for an entity to be a monopoly. Bigness itself is a problem for society.

What’s the definition of bigness in this work?

There are debates to be had at the borders, but FAANG are clearly on the wrong side of it.

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

#57

Post by zepto »

damnyou wrote: post #56
zepto wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the definition of bigness in this work?

There are debates to be had at the borders, but FAANG are clearly on the wrong side of it.

That’s a non answer. There must be a structural definition, otherwise who gets to decide?
Post reply on HN