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

Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#251

Post by Traster »

Hamuko wrote: post #232
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That million doesn't mean anything to them is what 200 billion in revenue means

It should probably be pointed out that this whole fight is about Apple not getting 30% of $99 on whatever signups the iOS application for a pre-release email platform would generate. And Apple has boasted about having over 20 million registered iOS developers. Who knows how many of them are actively paying the subscription at the same time, but it's probably still a very large number.

If you think that developer licenses are even in the same order of magnitude as the value of 30% of in-app purchases I think your intuition is way off.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#252

Post by duncanawoods »

cdmckay wrote: post #248
donmcronald wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Sweeny [1]: > “There’s a rationale for this on console where there’s enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers.” I guess it really just comes down to console makers acting like a partner whereas Apple acts more like a mobster running a protection racket. 1) https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortni...

Apple invests an enormous amount into R&D to make their devices. For example, they make their own CPUs, which happen to be some of the fastest ARM chips you can get. I don’t think it’s any different from consoles. The main difference is that with a console you know what the deal is. With an App Store app, the problem is you don’t know if Apple is going to deny your app on an inconsistently applied rule after spending…

They sell their devices at a healthy margin. Their financial interest in the device should stop at the till. If they want to sell additional software and services then they can prove their value on a competitive level playing field.

Right now they are double-dipping, not because of value they are adding, but because of the power they have given themselves over the consumer/developer relationship.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#253

Post by thu2111 »

cdmckay wrote: post #248
donmcronald wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Sweeny [1]: > “There’s a rationale for this on console where there’s enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers.” I guess it really just comes down to console makers acting like a partner whereas Apple acts more like a mobster running a protection racket. 1) https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortni...

Apple invests an enormous amount into R&D to make their devices. For example, they make their own CPUs, which happen to be some of the fastest ARM chips you can get. I don’t think it’s any different from consoles. The main difference is that with a console you know what the deal is. With an App Store app, the problem is you don’t know if Apple is going to deny your app on an inconsistently applied rule after spending…

But the Android ecosystem also invests hugely in R&D, it's just spread over more companies.

With consoles the primary justification was always that the hardware is sold below cost. This is purely to the benefit of the game developers, all the risk falls on the console maker, so they accept it for that reason. The iPhone is not only not sold below cost but its price has never fallen in the entire lifetime of the product, from what I recall.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#254

Post by kelnos »

scarface74 wrote: post #183
jollins wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-seeki…

What makes a console less of a “General purpose computer” than a phone? Again. Just like consoles and the Roku - the console makers get a cut of every game sold - even physical games. At one point, Nintendo limited the number of titles third party companies could publish and force them to use their manufacturing facilities. No retailer just sells things at a markup that covers costs.

The difference is that the video game developer has priced the console-maker's cut into the cost of the product, and that's the only way it can be sold.

Spotify charges a lower monthly price if you sign up on their website (and then go and sign in on iOS) than if you sign up through the iOS app.

Whether or not this hurts Spotify isn't at issue here; there are Spotify customers who are paying more than they have to because Apple refuses to let Spotify tell them about the lower price.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#255

Post by kelnos »

scarface74 wrote: post #199
jollins wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A video game console isn't used for programming, video production, writing, homework, etc. You know what I mean. The fact that they are specially packaged PC parts is beside the point. You keep bringing up video game distribution though, so let's roll with it. Pretend all of software was like video game distribution. How much worse would software be for users? Imagine FOSS on that.

And a phone isn’t “specially packaged” and is used for “video production, writing and homework”? Software would be better for the average user if PCs (and Macs) had tighter permission models - no viruses, spyware, adware, ransomware, surreptitiously reading your contacts without your permission, etc.

That's true, but that sort of sandboxing and permission models do not require a gatekeeping corporation to seek rent from everyone who wants to build for the platform. In fact it requires no interaction from the corporation at all.

iOS's app sandboxing and permissions model would work just as well if apps could be sideloaded.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#256

Post by kelnos »

scarface74 wrote: post #246
stephc_int13 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know the margins of retail stores? Last time I checked it was not close to 30%

You’re right. It’s 25%. https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-e...

I think it's safe to say that game retailers are not representative of all retail.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#257

Post by kelnos »

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…

If Apple doesn't think their customers care about the Apple Tax, then why do they structure their rules such that app developers can't even hint that the customer might be able to pay a lower price by signing up on their website? Seems like Apple is afraid if they allowed that, customers would spend a lot less through Apple's payments platform.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#258

Post by kelnos »

_jal wrote: post #172
nrmitchi wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They also contractually forbid merchants from taking actions that could make the fee more apparent to consumers

Has this changed over time, though? I often see a lot of brick-and-mortar merchants advertising different prices for cash/debit vs. credit. I probably see it most often at gas stations, but I see it in regular retail stores and restaurants sometimes as well. I moved to a new house earlier this year and even the movers offered a lower price for cash.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#259

Post by kelnos »

scarface74 wrote: post #244
arvinsim wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to be a case of whataboutism. Just because someone is doing it doesn't make it any less wrong.

It’s how the industry has worked from day one. “Wrong” is an opinion. In a legal sense it’s “precedent”. This is how the entire industry works. Before Apple, software developers only got a 30% to 40% cut to be in carriers app stores. Yes they had app stores where you could buy J2ME apps. Most retailers have a far greater wholesale to retail margin than 30%.

> “Wrong” is an opinion.

So people aren't allowed to have opinions anymore?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#260

Post by kelnos »

Hamuko wrote: post #81
chimeracoder wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products. Does that mean Netflix is a "business service" and not a consumer product?

Netflix is excluded by the "Reader exception". > Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other th…

It's hilarious to me that an app that exists to let you read email is not covered under a "reader" exception.
Post reply on HN