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

281–290 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#281

Post by scarface74 »

vertis wrote: post #279
scarface74 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the console makers? Google Play? The movie theaters? Amazon? Spotify?

Google Play is a bad example here because you can absolutely use app stores like F-Droid or Amazon to get content onto your device. Arguably, they have problems as well, but it's not an apples to apples (no pun intended) comparison. One has a completely locked down ecosystem that people are worried to speak against lest they lose access to it. The other has alternatives, albeit ones without huge traction. It does all…

So how has that worked out for developers who chose to use alternate stores?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#282

Post by scarface74 »

Leherenn wrote: post #275
scarface74 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is Amazon “double dipping” on the Kindle are the console makers? Are grocery stores for marking up products and having slotting fees? The App Store is a service.

I disagree, it's a market. If you allow 3rd parties to sell something, you create a market. That market should be free and competitive. If you want to keep it a service, don't allow 3rd parties in.

So Amazon, EBay, the console makers, FaceBook should all offer their markets freely?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#283

Post by JoeAltmaier »

scarface74 wrote: post #162
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #100

The problem is, Apple taking a cut from service where they don't own the device (you bought it from them; you own it) don't provide the network (you contract for that yourself) don't provide the content Its just some kind of strong-arm tactic - they do it because they can. Like some bouncer outside a club who demands money, but is not employed by the club nor the act. Just standing in the door and demanding money, an…

And the console makers? Google Play? The movie theaters? Amazon? Spotify?

Those are all very different propositions where the company brings some value - the theatre itself, the player software, the content/catalog. A good illustration of how bankrupt the Apple Walled Garden is - just a fence to extract money with zero added value.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#284

Post by scarface74 »

mcv wrote: post #280
kelnos wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

I think this is the only reasonable way to deal with this. You can't expect Spotify to take the hit. Apple demands extra money for users who sign up through the iOS app, so it's only reasonable to let the users who choose to sign up that way, pay the additional cost that comes with it. Of course this would be entirely reasonable if it was a conscious choice by those users, but Apple is intentionally keeping the marke…

And that’s what Spotify did when they allowed in app purchases. They charged more for going through the App Store. Do physical retailers go out of their way to say that you can get a product cheaper somewhere else? Can manufacturers advertise in Walmart that consumers can get the item cheaper if they go to Amazon?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#285

Post by JoeAltmaier »

davidivadavid wrote: post #200
donmcronald wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the marketplace do for a subscription app after it's installed? Even if you think Apple deserves some money for referrals / customer acquisition, 15% of lifetime revenue can't be a number you think is fair for that.

How do you estimate the (non-)fairness of a distribution channel?

Again, they don't provide the channel, once the app is installed. Not the device; not the network; not the content. They just extract money with rules.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#286

Post by scarface74 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #283
scarface74 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the console makers? Google Play? The movie theaters? Amazon? Spotify?

Those are all very different propositions where the company brings some value - the theatre itself, the player software, the content/catalog. A good illustration of how bankrupt the Apple Walled Garden is - just a fence to extract money with zero added value.

How well did the mobile developers do before the App Store when they tried to peddle their J2ME apps on feature phones? What are the chances that game developers would entice the whales to buy loot boxes and tokens for pay to win games if not for an easy payment method?

Does Amazon provide value with the Kindle? Does Valve with Steam? Amazon market place? eBay? The console makers?

The theaters don’t bring too much value as evidenced by them holding on by tooth and nail trying to convince the studios not to go straight to digital.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#287

Post by JoeAltmaier »

scarface74 wrote: post #286
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all very different propositions where the company brings some value - the theatre itself, the player software, the content/catalog. A good illustration of how bankrupt the Apple Walled Garden is - just a fence to extract money with zero added value.

How well did the mobile developers do before the App Store when they tried to peddle their J2ME apps on feature phones? What are the chances that game developers would entice the whales to buy loot boxes and tokens for pay to win games if not for an easy payment method? Does Amazon provide value with the Kindle? Does Valve with Steam? Amazon market place? eBay? The console makers? The theaters don’t bring too much va…

Good examples of stores that don't charge for content delivery outside their premises. They are clearly different in this critical way.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#288

Post by sebazzz »

vertis wrote: post #276
dogma1138 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the developer / publisher but the standard deal is about the same. Same goes for Steam.

Steam is a counterexample though. You don't have to deliver your PC game through Steam, and many of the big publishers have opted not to. Both Apple and Steam provide discovery and network effects, which help to justify their cut, but, as Jason Fried mentioned[1], you can't opt-out of these discovery benefits with Apple. [1]: https://twitter.com/jasonfried/status/1273655616897273858?s=...

> You don't have to deliver your PC game through Steam, and many of the big publishers have opted not to.

A better analogue would be that you download WoW free from Steam, then take a subscription at Blizzard. Does Steam allow that?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#289

Post by Avamander »

throw0101a wrote: post #274
Avamander wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers. Android is the dominant smartphone platform (per units shipped), so Google is closer being considered a monopoly. Apple does not h…

> But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly.

iPhones have a majority of the marketshare in the US. It's silly to ignore that.

> Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers.

If we follow your logic, there were other platforms that did not run MS Windows. They only had a monopoly on Windows computers.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#290

Post by [deleted] »

Avamander wrote: post #289
throw0101a wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers. Android is the dominant smartphone platform (per units shipped), so Google is closer being considered a monopoly. Apple does not h…

> But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly. iPhones have a majority of the marketshare in the US. It's silly to ignore that. > Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers. If we follow your…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN