511–520 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but only for the year in which you cross the threshold - subsequent years are commissioned at 30% from dollar one.
So if you're in the 30% bracket once, you're in there forever pretty much? That sucks if so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cynical is an understatement, this is pure evil. Locking in developers to only use their AppStore and not anything else, taking %15 of small businesses revenue for payment processing, and all this in the middle of a pandemic and still taking credit for being "generous" and "industry leading". All this while the average payment processor take around %3. And don't forget the reason they're doing it is to diffuse critic…
The App Store is a lot more than “payment processing.” If you sell 100 installs on the App Store as a small developer. How many would you sell if there wasn’t an App Store? You’d have to advertise — people just don’t show up at your website. PPC is expensive. And you have to learn how to do it. It’s hard for someone that doesn’t spend their time learning about PPC. It’s hard to get good ROIs even when you do know wha…
Your comment shows the glaringly obvious problem. We don't need two monopolized appstores to "decide" how much of a cut should go to appstore maintainers for all the (real) work they do. Opening u the ecosystem for more appstores or more venues to get apps will keep the prices to a market-driven norm as opposed to a monopolized fixed percentage.
But what a lot of folks are missing is how much this will help indie-developers and small businesses that want to pay themselves and their employees better and more easily put food on the table.
So while we can still be critical of the current app store limitations and costs - let's still celebrate a move in the right direction and something that is going to enable a lot of people to live better lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally not what’s happening. The iPhone is their product. If you don’t want to use their products and their store you do not have to. Buy a different device. There are plenty . Apple doesn’t get to tell Google, Samsung, Huawei, LG, OnePlus, Fairphone, etc. how to build their devices. The one device they do get to decide how it works is the iPhone. Because they created it, they own it, and they get to decid…
You're making normative claims as if they are "the way things are." Maybe the above is how you think things ought to be (I disagree), but anti-trust jurisprudence does not agree with your pseudo-libertarian worldview.
Anti-trust only applies if there’s a finding that Apple is a monopoly. The jury, so to speak, is still out.
If Apple was found to be a monopoly, then there may need to be some restrictions placed on how they operate.
But I think controlling how your own product works is the presumed default, even if that product is wildly successful, as long as that success is through actual product merit, and not done deceptively or through illegal collusion.
I’m seeing a lot of positive comments on HN about this: to me it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part. They hope to significantly reduce the pressure on politicians to take a close look at their App store practices by significantly reducing the absolute number of developers suffering the full impact whilst taking the minimum possible hit to their revenue. This has nothing to do with “doing the rig…
This news doesn't mean people shouldn't continue to put pressure on Apple and legislators to address the core issue (app store competition), but it's still really good news for small developers. It should also solidly put down all of the arguments we were seeing about whether indie devs and lawsuits putting pressure on Apple and legislators are at all worthwhile. A drop in app fees by 15% is a substantial win, and th…
Very true! This new change by Apple, although obviously a PR move, is still evidence that these legal fights against Apple are working.
This is a very clear example of why the lawsuit against Apple was a good thing, and why people should continue to put on more pressure against Apple. Because it forces them to make changes like this.
I’m seeing a lot of positive comments on HN about this: to me it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part. They hope to significantly reduce the pressure on politicians to take a close look at their App store practices by significantly reducing the absolute number of developers suffering the full impact whilst taking the minimum possible hit to their revenue. This has nothing to do with “doing the rig…
It's along the same lines of what Microsoft did when they were being investigated as a monopoly: throw a bone to smaller developers (or in Microsoft's case, kids in school) which actually just grows their market share (in Microsoft's case, kids learn to use Microsoft products and take that to work, in Apple's case, more devs see profitability in the Mac garden). > Apple / Google’s 30% take is the anti-competitive ele…
They are within their right to charge what they want. But it is anti-competitive for them to use significant market power to leverage themselves in other markets.
The lawsuit is not about the 30% cut. Instead, the anti-competitive behavior is that Apple prevent competing Apple stores using its significant market power.
Thats how anti-trust law works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making normative claims as if they are "the way things are." Maybe the above is how you think things ought to be (I disagree), but anti-trust jurisprudence does not agree with your pseudo-libertarian worldview.
Maybe we can both at least agree the normative claims I’m making are true absent a monopoly finding. Anti-trust only applies if there’s a finding that Apple is a monopoly. The jury, so to speak, is still out. If Apple was found to be a monopoly, then there may need to be some restrictions placed on how they operate. But I think controlling how your own product works is the presumed default, even if that product is wi…
Wrong again, you can violate anti-competition law without being a monopoly. You're correct that it hasn't been decided in a court of law.
I'm saying that I think they are engaging in anti-competitive behavior, you are saying "actually it is okay because they haven't been judged to engage in anti-competitive behavior in a court of law", which does not seem contrary to my claim, which is that I think they should be judged to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A store is allowed to charge what it wants for its products. A store is allowed to set the policies that it wants for the goods that it sells in its own stores. A store is allowed to block you from using any other store? These aren't natural continuations or logical extensions of meatspace, stop pretending they are.
This is literally not what’s happening. The iPhone is their product. If you don’t want to use their products and their store you do not have to. Buy a different device. There are plenty . Apple doesn’t get to tell Google, Samsung, Huawei, LG, OnePlus, Fairphone, etc. how to build their devices. The one device they do get to decide how it works is the iPhone. Because they created it, they own it, and they get to decid…
The same exact argument could be used regarding the desktop PC.
Do you think that microsoft could prevent competing web browser from being installed on the PC, if it choose to do so?
I think not. They would lose that anti-trust lawsuit.
> Because they created it, they own it, and they get to decide its future.
No, actually they dont get to decide that. If they are breaking anti-trust law, via anti-competitive behavior, then there are certain actions that they cannot do.
> The consumer gets to decide if they like it or not.
The consumers, or other companies, can also sue them for breaking anti-trust law, which Apple is required by law to follow.
I’m seeing a lot of positive comments on HN about this: to me it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part. They hope to significantly reduce the pressure on politicians to take a close look at their App store practices by significantly reducing the absolute number of developers suffering the full impact whilst taking the minimum possible hit to their revenue. This has nothing to do with “doing the rig…
This percentage is something that small businesses feel, but is not really what makes the marketplace for apps “anti-competitive”, and personally I think it’s a distraction from the main issue:
Is the total addressable market for “apps” defined by and exclusive to a single platform (iOS, Android, etc.) or not?
How you answer this makes the percentage either a number arrived at through a competitive market or a “tax”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe we can both at least agree the normative claims I’m making are true absent a monopoly finding. Anti-trust only applies if there’s a finding that Apple is a monopoly. The jury, so to speak, is still out. If Apple was found to be a monopoly, then there may need to be some restrictions placed on how they operate. But I think controlling how your own product works is the presumed default, even if that product is wi…
> Anti-trust only applies if there’s a finding that Apple is a monopoly. The jury, so to speak, is still out. Wrong again, you can violate anti-competition law without being a monopoly. You're correct that it hasn't been decided in a court of law. I'm saying that I think they are engaging in anti-competitive behavior, you are saying "actually it is okay because they haven't been judged to engage in anti-competitive b…
The case law on this is not as definitive as you are claiming. I don’t think their behavior is illegally anti-competitive.
Sure, you can say that not supporting a specific 3rd party application (e.g. an App Store) on your device is “anti-competitive” but obviously not illegally so for any business.
Behavior which is totally legal can become illegal in a monopoly situation.