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

Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 387 posts

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#361

Post by realityking »

fastball wrote: post #294
realityking wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is if the %age cut for iAP was lower than for app purchases, every app would become free with an iAP to unlock. For subscriptions, Apple changed the rules a few years ago to only take a 15% cut of renewals after 12 months.

How is that a problem? Then Apple could just start charging for actual distribution – i.e. actually charging at the point where they claim to be delivering value, rather than inserting themselves into a transaction where they add nothing. The argument against that is then generally "but what about free apps?", to which I say: unmonetized apps get distributed by Apple for free. Monetized ones pay for distribution + a…

In your model, does a free app with in-App Purchases count as monetized or not?

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#362

Post by fastball »

realityking wrote: post #361
fastball wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a problem? Then Apple could just start charging for actual distribution – i.e. actually charging at the point where they claim to be delivering value, rather than inserting themselves into a transaction where they add nothing. The argument against that is then generally "but what about free apps?", to which I say: unmonetized apps get distributed by Apple for free. Monetized ones pay for distribution + a…

In your model, does a free app with in-App Purchases count as monetized or not?

Yes. Realistically I think Apple could then charge anyone they want, where if you're under a certain usage or if you're a genuinely free-type app (the Wikipedia app) that don't charge you. The point is at that point it is more about Apple providing freebies in order to enrich their ecosystem than it is about Apple extorting platforms which are valuable mostly without Apple.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#363

Post by hackingthenews »

millstone wrote: post #196
hackingthenews wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Apple and Google is doing is in many ways effectively price control and inhibits free market dynamics. For example Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores (website, Google play store, etc), even though they are taking a huge 30% cut. So Spotify can't price their product 30% more expensive in the app store, which makes the app store appear com…

> Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores Where did you read that? I don't think that's true; for example YouTube Premium costs more through iOS IAP compared to the website. And Spotify did the same for years too.

Honestly heard it more than once from smaller players. I can see how the bigger players gets away with this based on all the other things they get away with that we know about.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#364

Post by Sebb767 »

mortenjorck wrote: post #73
makecheck wrote: post #55

What ultimately made me pull out of the Mac App Store was the fact that publishing with Apple meant “app with customizations to accommodate stupid rules”, and $EVERYWHERE_ELSE meant “upload and be done with it”. If you haven’t checked lately, the Mac App Store is a pathetic ghost town for the most part. On iOS I guarantee that if the App Store had even one alternative, many apps would do the same and bail on Apple, a…

I have an allergy to tech analogies in general, but Apple's brick-and-mortar retail analogy is one of the worst. In any locality other than rural towns served by a single Dollar General, consumers have a choice between multiple retail outlets. If they don't like the choices at one store, they're free to shop at another. "But Android!" one might say, and once again, the analogy falls completely flat. The switching cos…

> The switching costs of going between iOS and Android are obviously not remotely comparable from the switching costs of going between Walmart and Target.

True, but you knew that very well when you bought iOS device (and it might've even been exactly because of the strict review). Same if you moved to that town with the single Dollar General - you knew what you were getting into.

Don't get me wrong - I don't like the situation. But people buy iPhones (at the very least) despite the strict guidelines and developers still put apps in the store despite the strict rules. If either of those components would miss, Apple would not be one of the highest value companies in the world right now. And Apple does not have the market force to simply crush everyone else.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#365

Post by romanoderoma »

parasubvert wrote: post #351
romanoderoma wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft’s case was about parlaying their monopoly in Windows to the browser space by making Internet Explorer an intrinsic part of Windows. Nope, they have been accused and sentenced of abusing their dominant position by forcing OEMs to pre install IE on Windows, before the integration started. The way MS force them was with restrictive licenses that practically threatened OEMs to do what MS ordered or face legal…

When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. The cases are not even close to being in the same league. Microsoft didn’t force OEMs to preinstall IE: it came with the Plus! pack in Win95 which was optional. IE shipped preinstalled on the OSR1 distributions in late 1995. OEMs couldn’t uninstall it. MS saw IE as a feature, nor a product. The DOJ disagreed. And yes, the API arguments were the other factor of the con…

> When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. > The cases are not even close to being in the same league.

- MS was sentenced for making the software, not the hardware

- MS was abusing the dominant position to be the only OS on the HW, just like iOS is the solely possible OS on Apple HW and Apple store is the sole possible distributor of iOS apps, because Apple is abusing of its dominant position in the Apple ecosystem market (which is IMO a separate market from Android). If there were OEMs there would be at least competition in the HW space, like there was in the pc that drove down the prices for end users.

> Microsoft didn’t force OEMs to preinstall IE: it came with the Plus! pack in Win95

I firmly believed on HN arguments were not thrown around without backing them up with facts

It all started before Win95 was even around...

> In 1993, Novell claimed that Microsoft was blocking its competitors out of the market through anti-competitive practices. The complaint centered on the license practices at the time which required royalties from each computer sold by a supplier of Microsoft's operating system, whether or not the unit actually contained the Windows operating system. Microsoft reached a settlement in 1994, ending some of its license practices.

> The DOJ disagreed.

That's the US case

You know Europe has over 700 million citizens, you should remember that thing happens over here as well sometimes...

> - is not being anticompetitive by taking a retail cut on a store for its own platform

nobody has said that

Apple is a monopolist on a closed platform that they refuse to open up to third parties while at the same time acting as gatekeeper by allowing or disallowing apps on the store at their whim

that's clearly an unfair advantage for Apple the software company exactly like MS using secret OS Apis of their operating system to write their software had an unfair advantage (and was sentenced for that)

> argue that Apple is blocking those innovations with its Safari mandatory policy

It's the same circular argument

[1] Apple is blocking third parties from distributing their software freely AND [2] is hindering user's freedom by not allowing to replace certain parts of their system (like for example the browser) even though they allegedly are a source of vulnerabilities because [1]

That's the same thing MS did by making IE undeletable

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#366

Post by hackingthenews »

catgary wrote: post #195
hackingthenews wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Apple and Google is doing is in many ways effectively price control and inhibits free market dynamics. For example Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores (website, Google play store, etc), even though they are taking a huge 30% cut. So Spotify can't price their product 30% more expensive in the app store, which makes the app store appear com…

That’s standard - credit card companies have similar agreements with merchants.

Completely agree. Unapparent effective price fixing is standard. The modern governments has dropped the ball on trying to understand the modern markets.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#367

Post by romanoderoma »

parasubvert wrote: post #350
romanoderoma wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulating retailers because you don’t like their cut is price controls That's not the point though The point is that if Apple Store (or Play Store) is the only way to ask for money to users, Apple cannot decide who's in and who's out on their whim, they have to allow anybody and only act post-facto on the apps that misbehaved In real life you are not arrested for attempted homicide because you carry a knife with y…

Apple absolutely can decide who is in or out: it’s their platform. Governments with even regulated markets generally don’t force stores to carry certain products. Amazon absolutely has a say of what they carry in their store, and most consumers hate the terrible curation of their marketplaces lately. If what Apple runs is not a product, it’s a utility. I think people underestimate what it means to declare the App Sto…

> Apple absolutely can decide who is in or out: it’s their platform.

The HW device is not theirs.

> Amazon absolutely has a say of what they carry in their store

They have no say of what's inside the box.

If inside the box there is a sticker that says "buy from our store, it's cheaper" they can't be forced out

Maybe Amazon can find other ways of kicking products out, but not that one

Apple wrote that rule inside their agreements

Which is clearly unfair competition

Apple competes directly with publishers on the store, being both entities that make the software that people can buy on the only store available, Amazon does not compete directly, they don't manufacture what they sell, they simply resell.

> It is currently a fantasy to think otherwise.

again: EU exists and take this matters seriously.

China could find itself in a digital war with US and it's the third most important market in the World for Apple.

Things can change very quickly

> most consumers hate the terrible curation of their marketplaces lately.

Considering how many posts I've seen about broken or fake products sold on Amazon, it's quite clear that the real fantasy is thinking that a marketplace where only one decides what's good and what's not doesn't produce a better curated and more secure experience

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#368

Post by nodamage »

romanoderoma wrote: post #365
parasubvert wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. The cases are not even close to being in the same league. Microsoft didn’t force OEMs to preinstall IE: it came with the Plus! pack in Win95 which was optional. IE shipped preinstalled on the OSR1 distributions in late 1995. OEMs couldn’t uninstall it. MS saw IE as a feature, nor a product. The DOJ disagreed. And yes, the API arguments were the other factor of the con…

> When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. > The cases are not even close to being in the same league. - MS was sentenced for making the software, not the hardware - MS was abusing the dominant position to be the only OS on the HW, just like iOS is the solely possible OS on Apple HW and Apple store is the sole possible distributor of iOS apps, because Apple is abusing of its dominant position in the Apple ec…

Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market and that is why they lost their case. Apple has less than 50% market share in the United States and it's unlikely the courts would view them as having monopoly power. The case is even weaker in Europe where Apple only has 25% market share.

It does not make sense to point to Microsoft and declare "these situations are the same" when there is a key difference in the amount of market power each company wields.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#369

Post by romanoderoma »

nodamage wrote: post #368
romanoderoma wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. > The cases are not even close to being in the same league. - MS was sentenced for making the software, not the hardware - MS was abusing the dominant position to be the only OS on the HW, just like iOS is the solely possible OS on Apple HW and Apple store is the sole possible distributor of iOS apps, because Apple is abusing of its dominant position in the Apple ec…

Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market and that is why they lost their case. Apple has less than 50% market share in the United States and it's unlikely the courts would view them as having monopoly power. The case is even weaker in Europe where Apple only has 25% market share. It does not make sense to point to Microsoft and declare "these situations are the same" when there is a key differenc…

> Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market

only in the consumer market...

it is not the same argument people use right now for Apple?

"Buy Android" they say

People could buy Sun, SGI, IBM with OS/2, Macintosh computers etc. etc.

in 1993 even Amiga was a viable option

The point is that the alternative is not really an alternative if switching is expensive or straight impossible (it's very hard to switch from iOS to Android)

> It does not make sense to point to Microsoft and declare "these situations are the same" when there is a key difference in the amount of market power each company wields.

Microsoft in 1995 was ranked below place 250 in Fortune's 500 list

Apple is 3rd in 2020 and the company with the highest capitalization in the history of the stock market

I think that makes for pretty important key differences too ...

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#370

Post by romanoderoma »

parasubvert wrote: post #353
romanoderoma wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So now you expect Congress to force Apple to sell you an iPad at the same price it sells to a corporation that buys 1000s? I honestly expect the congress to remove Apple powers as gatekeeper If the Apple Store is the only store for iOS devices, they have to allow any app in and let the authorities handle misbehaviour Apple is not a National State, so it shouldn't act as the ruler and dictator of the State. I expect…

Amazon absolutely has the right to do that. As does Apple. Government forcing companies to sell other company’s products is a terrible policy and completely contrary to the free market.

> Government forcing companies to sell other company’s products is a terrible policy and completely contrary to the free market.

Really?

Amazon was born and is still a company that __literally__ sell other companies' products!

Apple is not forced to sell other companies' products, Apple should be forced to not block them from distributing freely the software users want.

The point is exactly that they shouldn't be selling other companies' products (apps) but the companies making the apps should be selling them, the way they please.

Post reply on HN