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

Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#91

Post by sjwright »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #76
0xy wrote: post #9

If you could choose between a fee decrease to 15% or the ability to sideload apps bypassing the store, which is more important? To me, the only reason I avoid iOS is specifically because I cannot install my own apps without using the store.

I think the fees percentage should not be capped. Apple should be free to charge whatever they want. The main problem is the second issue you mentioned. That way apple controls devices without the owner of the device having any say in the matter. That should not be allowed. It is my phone, I paid for the hardware and software. So either let me install whatever app I want, or open source the whole thing so I can flash…

If it became possible for consumers to side-load applications, the iPhone (and iPad) would lose what is in my opinion one of its biggest positive selling points: that Apple is acting as gatekeeper for executable code.

As soon as that capability exists, my elderly parent's and elderly in-laws' iPads will quickly fill up with malware and scamware like their desktop computers routinely used to.

And before you argue that you could choose to not open that pandora's box on particular devices. But as soon as enough developers decide that getting around Apple's fees is worth the effort, use of it will become commonplace and potentially unavoidable.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#92

Post by sjwright »

saagarjha wrote: post #86
sjwright wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but how are you going to construct legislation that specifically targets Apple's walled garden without breaching the Fourteenth Amendment?

> the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship rights?

Equal Protection Clause.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#93

Post by sjwright »

Apocryphon wrote: post #88
sjwright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I completely agree with everything you wrote. I'm not opposed to new laws that set a limit on platform access fees—but such laws can't be targeted at Apple exclusively. They have to be applied to any company which charges fees for access to an exclusive market.

Certainly, but maybe this public outcry and exposure from an antitrust investigation will educate people about the structural problems in this industry and lead to greater change that will apply to more companies than just Apple.

I'm totally cool with that.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#94

Post by matheusmoreira »

sooheon wrote: post #40
altacc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That choice isn't a real choice though, as it's the consumers' choice to buy an iPhone not the businesses. Businesses only have a real choice about who their customers are when there is free access to the market. The issue here is precisely that you cannot set up your own internet corner shop and ignore Apple, as that means you have no access to consumers who use Apple. Internet distribution channels are inherently o…

> The issue here is precisely that you cannot set up your own internet corner shop and ignore Apple, as that means you have no access to consumers who use Apple I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple. If you don't want to pay to play on their platform, imagine a world where Apple doesn't exist, and position your business accordingly. Nothing is actually forcing you to…

> I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple.

I don't understand how expecting a computer to just run software became entitlement. Why should anyone need Apple's permission to do anything?

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#95

Post by gear54rus »

_y5hn wrote: post #6
Apocryphon wrote: post #2

Perhaps this is apophenia, but it appears that societal tensions are boiling over from all corners, against all kinds of established authorities, no?

This is the expected outcome from introspection (Corona period).

Yeah and I wish it happened more often.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#96

Post by rydre »

bluesign wrote: post #63
rydre wrote: post #35

Anyone who cares about this issue, just upvote, don't comment. HN's algorithm downranks posts where the comment to upvote ratio is too high.

Yeah and there is a reason for that and it’s working well to be honest. Gaming the system is never good option.

Maybe they should change the algorithm then. There is an important discussion going on and the dumb algorithm thinks its better to just brush it away and kick the can down the road.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#97

Post by Hamuko »

sjwright wrote: post #49
Hamuko wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where was your outrage then? Where was the game publishers' outrage? Where was the game developers' outrage? Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations than Apple and the people developing for the App Store. And the game console makers' cut isn't just pure greed. Sony took an estimate loss of $240-$300 on every PS3 sold at launch just in order to widen out the install base.

> Where was the game publishers' outrage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations Let's set aside the unproven assumptions; so your logic is that if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees. But if you're a bunch of meanies, different laws shall apply to you. I'm sorry, I was under the misapprehension…

>if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees

If you're a nice platform monopolist, you're not charging arbitrary, excessive platform access fees. You can have a monopoly on a platform, charge fees and still act in a way that makes those fees seem reasonable.

Sony for example seems to have a pretty positive relationship with its developers. Here's for example something I found related to the PS4 dev kits:

>Although this $2,500 price [for a PlayStation 4 dev kit] is being cited in development circles, the game-makers we spoke to all said that Sony had lent them dev kits for a limited period of one year, for free. As of right now, there are no dev kits being sold. Sony is sending whatever it has available to favored developers. "All the indies I know got them for free," said one developer. "Sony has been amazing about kits and development thus far."

>Another developer said that Sony is focused on loaners, rather than collecting fees. "They are handing them out like candy," he said.

There's also various accounts of Sony providing support for its developers, including launching a $10 million fund for independent developers.

https://sonyreconsidered.com/playstation-commits-10-million-...

If Sony and the like were every bit as bad as Apple, Google, Steam, etc., I'd imagine we'd hear a lot more negative stories about them. I tried to find stories of Tim Sweeney talking shit about Sony's cut, but couldn't really find any. Only really found things like this:

>“We’ve been working super close with Sony for quite a long time on storage,” he says. “The storage architecture on the PS5 is far ahead of anything you can buy on anything on PC for any amount of money right now. It’s going to help drive future PCs. [The PC market is] going to see this thing ship and say, ‘Oh wow, SSDs are going to need to catch up with this.”

Maybe developers are more forgiving towards platform fees when they feel like they are working together with the charging company rather than against.

>Such behaviours are anti-competitive as it would be exceedingly difficult for a new market entrant to compete with such artificially low console prices.

Sure. But it also works out in game developers' favor. Console makers are cutting the cost of the device to reach a larger install base, which then increases the potential customer base for game publishers and developers.

>What you're saying is that the US Government should enact laws which favour dumping and loss-leader activity.

I'm not.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#98

Post by sjwright »

Hamuko wrote: post #97
sjwright wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where was the game publishers' outrage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade > Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations Let's set aside the unproven assumptions; so your logic is that if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees. But if you're a bunch of meanies, different laws shall apply to you. I'm sorry, I was under the misapprehension…

> if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees If you're a nice platform monopolist, you're not charging arbitrary, excessive platform access fees. You can have a monopoly on a platform, charge fees and still act in a way that makes those fees seem reasonable. Sony for example seems to have a pretty positive relationship with its developers. Here's for example something I found…

So your logic is that if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees. But if you're a bunch of meanies, different laws shall apply to you. I'm sorry, I was under the misapprehension that you were making a serious point.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#99

Post by Hamuko »

sjwright wrote: post #60
lukeramsden wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video game consoles are not comparable to smartphones, smartphones are an integral part of (Western) life, communication, co-ordination - a video game console is purely entertainment.

That may be true in practice, but it's not something you can create laws around. The US Government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which consumer electronics are integral to (Western) life. Particularly given that the vast majority of App Store profits are going to the makers of games. If there are going to be mandated limits, they should apply to all companies which build hardware and charge platform access…

>That may be true in practice, but it's not something you can create laws around. The US Government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which consumer electronics are integral to (Western) life.

Why not?

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#100

Post by Hamuko »

sjwright wrote: post #98
Hamuko wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees If you're a nice platform monopolist, you're not charging arbitrary, excessive platform access fees. You can have a monopoly on a platform, charge fees and still act in a way that makes those fees seem reasonable. Sony for example seems to have a pretty positive relationship with its developers. Here's for example something I found…

So your logic is that if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees. But if you're a bunch of meanies, different laws shall apply to you. I'm sorry, I was under the misapprehension that you were making a serious point.

If you are not going to argue in good faith, please don't respond.
Post reply on HN