Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#171

Post by tpush » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #131

realtalk_sp wrote: post #120

Some people here seem to be responding to all of this inappropriately. The simple fact is that Apple is injecting itself as an intermediary in the payment process and extracting a preposterously oversized commission for no meaningful added value. And it's easy to see that Apple knows what they're doing is wrong. They strictly prohibit developers from signaling that there's an extra cost for purchases made through App…

I don't disagree. But you do realize you could also be describing the credit card market?

... and in the EU credit card fees are highly regulated.

The same fate will probably befall Apple, too.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#172

Post by _jal » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:52 PM UTC

nrmitchi wrote: post #139

_jal wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree. But you do realize you could also be describing the credit card market?

I think most people understand that the parent could be describing credit card markets, and I don't think that anyone is trying to make the case that credit card companies don't also take anti-competitive actions. But the typical credit card fee is ~3%, which is literally an order of magnitude less, and Visa/Mastercard/etc also don't prohibit their merchants from accepting other forms of payment.

They do, in fact, make agreements with merchants to lock out other forms of payment. It isn't universal, true.

They also contractually forbid merchants from taking actions that could make the fee more apparent to consumers, which drives up prices for non-credit customers, although there isn't a direct analog for Apple I can think of.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#173

Post by Uw7yTcf36gTc » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:56 PM UTC

ac29 wrote: post #151

Despegar wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The simple fact is that Apple is injecting itself as an intermediary in the payment process and extracting a comically oversized commission for no meaningful added value. Frankly anyone who says this with a straight face is being absurd. Apple's commission isn't for "payment processing", promotion, any particular API, or service they provide on their platform. That they do all of those things makes it an attractive…

> They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace. This is almost the textbook definition of extortion. "Hey, wouldn't it be a shame if you lost access to all these potential customers? You better give us 30% of your revenue."

You are paying to access the pool of customers. You never had the pool to begin with so you aren’t paying to not “lose access”.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#174

Post by tssva » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #116

gnicholas wrote: post #87

> "All the rules they're citing should apply to Gmail and Outlook as well," Hansson told Axios. " I agree Apple is being inconsistent here, but not vis a vis gmail and outlook. Those are free services, so they’re not the right comparison. Apple doesn’t require IAP for these because there is no payment involved. Netflix, on the other hand, proves that Apple does allow apps that are useless unless the user has a separa…

Google does charge for additional Gmail storage in the form of Google One.

The Gmail app is not tied to the Gmail email service. It can be used to access non-Gmail accounts. Google Photos and Google Drive both allow in-app purchasing of additional storage space billed through Apple.

Edit: Added statement about Gmail app working with non-Gmail email accounts.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#175

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#176

Post by jollins » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #168

realtalk_sp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing stores that exist in a competitive ecosystem with price variation. The analogy breaks down because "buyers of products" doesn't map one-to-one with "owners of iPhones" and because distribution of physical goods actually has significant costs. Assuming you are in fact in the tech industry, you should know that near-zero marginal distribution cost is one of the core principles underpinning software ec…

Let’s talk about console makers then..... How many stores actually “transparently” tell you their markup?

I see the game console argument come up a a lot and I really don’t think it sticks.

Game consoles are not general purpose computers and have a much more narrow intended purpose. Apple themselves argue that the iPad is just as capable (or more so) than your typical computer, which means that we expect it to be capable of computer-y things which are inherently flexible and versatile, not hamstrung by Apple’s rent-seeking behavior.

This also isn’t about 100% transparency of Apple’s costs — saying it is misdirects. We don’t know their costs (though it certainly is below 30% of all revenue passing through in-app-purchases), that isn’t the issue. Requiring 30% of others’ revenue and being forbidden to even mention alternatives is another matter.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#177

Post by tssva » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 11:05 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #119

scarface74 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything none free about either?

You can buy a subscription to remove ads in the latter and add storage in the former.

The Gmail app is not exclusive to the Gmail email service. You can use it to access other email services. Google Photo and Google Drive which are tied to only Google services offer in-app purchase of additional storage.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#178

Post by jkmcf » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 11:06 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #141

AlexMuir wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall the terms specifically prohibit different pricing. (You deserved a reply not a downvote!)

Not true and if it was, other apps would be in violation of it. Dropbox Plus is 11.99€ on the App Store as an in-app purchase and 9.99€ on Dropbox.com

The rule used to be it has to be the same price. Has that changed, has Dropbox received special treatment, or is the Euro market granting them the pricing exception?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#179

Post by donmcronald » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 11:06 PM UTC

Despegar wrote: post #156

realtalk_sp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace. Apps that are made up to 42% more expensive (NOTE: the 30% fee applies to all in-app purchases and the first year of subscriptions) in a way that's entirely opaque to those users. The fact that you think this is okay is the only thing I find absurd. You also seem like someone who i…

>You also seem like someone who is for some reason predisposed to be an apologist for Apple's monopolistic business practices. You certainly don't represent what would likely be the average/majority sentiment of Apple's customers, were they sufficiently informed. I'm willing to defend Apple because I'm tired of disingenuous arguments from either parties with self-interest or FOSS advocates who have some ideological o…

I'm sure Apple's customers care about how much money they spend. That's the whole reason Apple strongarms developers into masking the higher cost of products delivered through Apple's app store.

I don't know anyone who would like the idea of paying an extra 15-30% for a product because of a do nothing middleman that's managed to monopolize a portion of the market based on demand aggregation.

It's literally the definition of what I've always understood anti-trust to be. Apple is using their domination in the phone market to manipulate the software distribution market.

The current tech companies (all of them) make 90s Microsoft look like a charitable organization. It's unbelievable to wander around the internet and see so many people advocating for systems that are terrible for the average consumer.

Wealth inequality seems to have an inverse relationship with average intelligence.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#180

Post by Avamander » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 11:07 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #97

Avamander wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple/iOS has 100% on their platform. Noone stopped you back then from buying an Apple PC, installing Linux or BSD etc. either. Noone stopped you from installing an alternative browser on either Windows or Android, yet they got slapped for it.

This is like saying McDonald's have a monopoly because you can only buy McDonalds in a McDonalds restaurant... go somewhere else if you don't want the McDonalds menu.

Your analogy is just blatantly incorrect from the developer's perspective, very user-centric. You can't choose not to sell "patties" "McDonalds" if you want to actually sell your "patties".

And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows and Chrome on Android, but it was still considered bad monopolistic behaviour and they got punished for it.