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

Apple, Epic, and the App Store

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 781 posts

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#511

Post by kevingadd »

Someone wrote: post #295
x3c wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Walmart owns the physical space but apple doesn’t own the physical device.... Apple has set up shop on the real-estate (the device) that it sold over to the user. I’ve seen this argument plenty of times and it rings hollow to me every time.

So, if they started renting the phone to you and everybody else, having a single Apple-controlled App Store would be acceptable? (That may not even be 100% hypothetical. They have lots of money, so can afford getting delayed payment for phones. They might even be able to become a global phone company, too, and rent you a phone and a network subscription)

This is how apps on phones worked for a really long time, each carrier ran its own App Store and in many cases you were renting the phone from them or getting it for free with your plan. Mobile carriers have begun merging into megacarriers over the last decade, but for a while you had a choice of at least 4 real carriers in the US.

Plus, you could unlock your phone (in some cases) and move to another carrier, which theoretically meant a different store! True freedom.

Of course actually using these phones and putting apps on them was MISERABLE, mostly because they were symbian and/or j2me apps

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#512

Post by scarface74 »

dzader wrote: post #281
wrkronmiller wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining XCode, running iCloud app-facing services, building/maintaining SDKs, etc... Apple has to pay for these somehow. They can either get the money by charging more for each iPhone or they can get the money from the real end-users of these products: Developers.

Or you know, they could get the money from the yearly fee they charge developers for exactly these reasons

$100?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#513

Post by rched »

enragedcacti wrote: post #350
rched wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't want to install a third-party app store, then don't I've been seeing this argument a lot and it makes the assumption that allowing alternative app stores has no impact on people who choose not to use them. I don't think this is true. An app developer may decide to only list their app on an alternative store because they pay lower fees and they can handle payments themselves. As a user you now need to c…

This view is equally flawed in my opinion. How many apps do you not have access to because their business model doesn't align with giving 30% of the revenue away, or is entirely banned a la XCloud?

Honestly not that many that I can think of. XCloud is a notable exception and I hope Apple changes their rules on game streaming services. I think many of the App Store rules have a benefit to end users but the “no game streaming services” rule seems like a loss for everyone involved.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#514

Post by scarface74 »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #468
pwinnski wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At launch, Apple operated the App Store hoping to break even, and 30% wasn't quite doing it at first. On a $.99 app, they still might not. I mean, they might, given economies of scale, but barely. Free apps incur costs with zero compensation. If all apps cost 99 cents, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. If Apple were still operating the App Store at break-even, I don't think we'd be having this conversat…

The trouble is with the App Store that you can't charge more on the App Store than you do elsewhere to cover the costs of the App Store. This is perhaps the anti competitive part - if you could just pass on the App Store costs then the free market would reign.

Yes you can. In fact Spotify did just that before they stopped allowing in app purchases.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#515

Post by askafriend »

zem wrote: post #482
askafriend wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Call a spade a spade. Not even the mafia extorted businesses for 30%. What do you call Steam, Xbox, Nintendo, Best Buy, Game Stop, Playstation, Microsoft...

rent seekers. why, what do you call them?

Ok, and what exactly is your proposal?

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#516

Post by scarface74 »

wmf wrote: post #52
lilyball wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. If IAP was a different cut, all apps would go "free" overnight and require an IAP purchase to unlock most of the app. Apple could try something like giving "consumable" IAP a different cut, but I'm sure devs would still try to game that too (e.g. having a consumable that unlocks the app for a set amount of time, rather than a permanent unlock).

BTW if Apple is protecting customers so much they should ban consumable IAPs because they're being used to drain money from people via addiction.

I really wish they would. I would be okay if games had to all be paid up front and there was upgrade pricing.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#517

Post by enos_feedler »

m463 wrote: post #448
cromwellian wrote: post #352

"But Apple needs to fund the App Store. XCode, payment processing, reviewers, it all costs money". Yes, very little in comparison. Apple made $50 billion in revenue from the App Store in 2019. $50 BILLION. The data centers costs to serve up this are miniscule in comparison. Apple could build 50 datacenters PER YEAR EVERY YEAR for that revenue. Reviewers? A staff of 10,000 fulltime reviewers paid $200k per year would…

The app store should be free as a complement to hardware sales. "A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants. In a small town, when the local five star restaurant has a two-for-one Valentine’s day special, the local baby…

Why are the app store and iphone hardware 2 distinct products? the app store is simply a feature of the iPhone product.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#518

Post by ghostwriter »

sjy wrote: post #460
ghostwriter wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple). No it isn't. The next moment Apple significantly lowers its comission, the same people will start whining about Apple "dumping the market" "to sink its competitors"…

If you’re a seemingly unstoppable corporate juggernaut, you’ll make enemies who think (rightly or wrongly) that your business practices are unfair, and they may successfully sue you using the laws intended to stop huge companies from engaging in unfair business practices. I’m not sure what your point is here. That antitrust litigation is futile or counterproductive? The threat of it seems to be having positive effect…

It's counter-productive, it aims at punishing successful where mere "bigness" is used as the proof of "unfair". We don't know how much cheaper Apple products could be if it hadn't have to spread costs of lobbying its interests in Washington DC across their device prices.

> The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN

it depends on your reliance on that kind of services and varies greatly among the userbase. I'm using Apple since 2014, I've never needed to use any of these services, and I would prefer to have a device that is hard to disassemble and is cheaper to produce without a loss in quality.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#519

Post by scarface74 »

mahkeiro wrote: post #269
philwelch wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were an app developer who relied on in-app purchases, I would probably care a lot more. But as a consumer, I don’t, and I suggest the only reason consumers have to care is because app developers (understandably) want lower fees and are negotiating terms via PR.

You should care because in the end you are the one paying the 30%.

No because I don’t pay for loot boxes, gems, and other useless consumables.

Re: Apple, Epic, and the App Store

#520

Post by thebean11 »

three_seagrass wrote: post #424
acomjean wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. The game is free, "V-bucks" you buy, I think you just get character/weapon skins that aren't required. I don't love the setup, but since kids are hanging out on fortnite having it free lets everyone who wants into that world.

I think they're referring to swapping in funny money to obfuscate customer ability to estimate the costs. It's similar to how slot machines require tokens, but I don't think that's quite gambling. The gambling part comes in with loot boxes, where you're essentially paying to roll the dice to get something of value.

Since when do slot machines require tokens? I thought it's usually either cash, or a card with money loaded on to it.
Post reply on HN