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

Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 671 posts

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#621

Post by lern_too_spel »

mdorazio wrote: post #617
johannes1234321 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tour via settings isn't that easy for "Joe Average" and updating isn't easy as well.

Does it still nag you repeatedly about your device settings being insecure as well after you enable it to load from non-Play sources? It's been a while since I was on Android, but remember that being immensely unfriendly to the whole idea.

Only the first time you enable it and the first time you install an app from a particular source. I don't remember ever getting repeated nags.

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#622

Post by hda2 »

stryker7001 wrote: post #618
johannes1234321 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tour via settings isn't that easy for "Joe Average" and updating isn't easy as well.

Joe average doesn’t want to sideload apps. That’s what people don’t understand on here.

No, he definitely does when he can't get what he wants on the app store (e.g. Fortnite).

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#623

Post by smachiz »

lukeschlather wrote: post #614
smachiz wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not a lawyer I presume. This isn't remotely related to tying - and buying an iPhone doesn't force you to buy anything at all from the app store. And it's completely unrelated to any commissions from the App store. If you read more of the wikipedia article, you'll see Apple and Microsoft come up - but either entirely different issues that are wholly unrelated to their App Store pricing.

The point is that this is analogous to Microsoft shipping Internet Explorer with Windows to try and kill Netscape. Apple does the same thing with their app store. Except this goes a step further: imagine how the Microsoft antitrust suit would have gone if in addition to shipping a free competing product, Microsoft had built something into Windows so that Netscape wouldn't run at all and demanded Netscape only sell th…

Except it's not really an analog at all.

Microsoft didn't lose their antitrust case because of any of that - they lost because they were paying OEMs to not install software - and if they did, they were punishing them. The rebate scheme was really central to the issue.

Then, they didn't clearly say "you can't install software" or "everyone who wants to install software has to do X" they just made installing Netscape or removing IE functionally broken.

That's really different than "everyone who wants to make money through my platform has to pay me 30%".

The place Apple might actually have trouble would be Spotify - where Apple is competing with their product, allowing subscriptions in-app for their own platform, but not for Spotify unless they cough up 30% or whatever.

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#624

Post by stale2002 »

forest_dweller wrote: post #612
stale2002 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone. This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices. Epic's app store, for example, would take 12%, instead of 30%. This would help consumers if they were allowed to use it.

> The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone. And that has nothing to do with the revenue share. > This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices. Sure. But it doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Other companies have a similar revenue share on their platforms on open platforms. So that s…

> doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair.

Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented.

> Other companies have a similar revenue share

Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges.

All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is being prevented, and they charge less money.

> It will help developers but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the prices

Even if you are willing to ignore basic economic theory completely by saying it would have no effect on price, giving more money to developers indirectly helps consumers even if prices stay exactly the same.

It helps them because more resources can be spent on the game to make it better.

And to go even further, even if such benefits don't exist, it is still better to give the money to the people who made the game, who I think deserve that money more than Apple.

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#625

Post by vivian_lee »

freedomben wrote: post #599
heavyset_go wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is hobbled, as well. The only way to implement automatic upgrading, background installation or batch upgrading/installation of apps is via the Play Store. Not only that, but most people have no idea how to side load apps, and Android doesn't make it easy. Both Google and Apple have kept a stranglehold on the mobile app distribution market for over a decade now.

> Not only that, but most people have no idea how to side load apps, and Android doesn't make it easy. I completely disagree. I'm not sure how they could make it much easier without defaulting to allowing it. Download the APK, open it, click install (or if the setting disallows it, follow the prompt to change the setting).

I agree with you, it just click -> (prompt setting) -> install. Android would ask me to only allow once, which is super convenient since I would like to disable it after finish installation. I don't understand how can it be easier while remaining security. Beside, third party app store is allowed.

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#626

Post by forest_dweller »

stale2002 wrote: post #624
forest_dweller wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The anti-competitive and illegal behavior that Apple is doing is preventing alternative app stores from being on the IPhone. And that has nothing to do with the revenue share. > This actions prevents other app stores from undercutting apple's prices. Sure. But it doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Other companies have a similar revenue share on their platforms on open platforms. So that s…

> doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented. > Other companies have a similar revenue share Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges. All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is be…

> Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented.

No it doesn't. The 30/70 split for revenue share is a standard thing across industries. This includes other industries that aren't related to IT at all.

> Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges.

Epic are trying to buy their way into the market. They are flush with cash from fortnite and unreal engine. Once they wedge themselves in it will raise their take I would wager.

Every other player is at 30%. Nintendo have lowered it to 30% to be inline with others.

Every brainlet brings up EPIC as a gotcha, ignoring the fact that EPIC are buying their way into the market. Which is very important thing to consider.

> All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is being prevented, and they charge less money.

A singular example where a company is buying it way into the market is not representative of the whole. There were banks that had interest rates of 16% back in the 1970s. That doesn't mean that the other banks should have offered that or that it is fair (those banks with high interests rates would always collapse).

So no that isn't true.

> Even if you are willing to ignore basic economic theory completely by saying it would have no effect on price, giving more money to developers indirectly helps consumers even if prices stay exactly the same.

I am not ignoring basic economic theory. You are. If people buy a triple A game for £50 or £60 in the sufficient numbers then the prices won't be lowered.

As for developers getting more money helps consumer. Absolute nonsense. The company will pocket the cash. You are living in fantasy land if you think anything else.

> It helps them because more resources can be spent on the game to make it better.

That is good for developers by not necessarily for consumers. And no it won't be spent on making the game better.

> And to go even further, even if such benefits don't exist, it is still better to give the money to the people who made the game, who I think deserve that money more than Apple.

Apple deserve the money because the devs agreed to put their software on their store and the stipulation (until now) is that Apple got 30% of the purchase.

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#627

Post by samatman »

fbelzile wrote: post #587
samatman wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why were they able to take 30% and continue to take 15% commission off of all sales? Because the value of the app store is only created via continued practices of anti-competitive behaviour. Also, because Apple created the most valuable mobile software market in the world, by creating the iPhone, continuing to release top-notch phones year after year, and by creating the App Store itself. It remains true that iPhon…

> Also, because Apple created the most valuable mobile software market in the world, No, they created the possibility for the most valuable mobile software market in the world. Third-party developers were the ones that created it into the most valuable mobile software market in the world. > by creating the iPhone Creating the iPhone does not explain the source of the App Store's value, only that one is "tied" to the…

> No, they created the possibility for the most valuable mobile software market in the world. Third-party developers were the ones that created it into the most valuable mobile software market in the world.

No, they literally created the market. The products sold in my supermarket don't create the supermarket either.

Whether what Apple does meets the legal definition of tying is an open question. I doubt it, clearly you're convinced, which is to say, you're assuming your own conclusion.

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#628

Post by psahgal »

threeseed wrote: post #593
psahgal wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web has a wide variety of payment processors, but that doesn't seem to slow down online purchasing.

No one is saying that it would slow down purchasing. Only that it is user-hostile which services like Paypal absolutely are.

I'm surprised you find Paypal to be a user-hostile service! I've never had major issues with it. Would you like to elaborate?

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#629

Post by stale2002 »

forest_dweller wrote: post #626
stale2002 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't mean the revenue share they currently have is unfair. Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented. > Other companies have a similar revenue share Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges. All I need is a singular example to prove my point. And we have that example. Epic's app store is be…

> Sure it does. That is because competition is being prevented. No it doesn't. The 30/70 split for revenue share is a standard thing across industries. This includes other industries that aren't related to IT at all. > Except for epic! They charge 12%. So that is one specific example right there, that would reduce the fee below the current fee that Apple charges. Epic are trying to buy their way into the market. They…

> Epic are trying to buy their way into the market.

So then you agree that what they offer is cheaper, and that this cheaper option is being prevent by Apple. Cool. Glad you agree!

> ignoring the fact that EPIC are buying their way into the market. Which is very important thing to consider.

Cheaper is cheaper. Thats all that I care about. I care about the end result of lower fees.

> it is not representative of the whole.

It is representative of Apple actions unfairly causing prices to be higher for this specific competitor is being kept out though!

All I need is a single example, to show that Apple's actions have prevented a lower priced option from competing.

> Once they wedge themselves in it will raise their take I would wager.

Even so, that still means that prices are lower for this previous period of time! Thats still lower pricing, for a period of time.

> The company will pocket the cash. You are living in fantasy land if you think anything else.

Even if we agree that this is the case, I would still prefer this to Apple receiving any of the money.

I would still rather the game companies receive all of the money, even if they pocketed it, because I want more money to go to game devs, and less to go to Apple.

> Apple deserve the money because the devs agreed to put their software on their store

Nope! Because their actions are illegally anti-competitive, and Apple has significant market power.

Regardless if game devs agreed to the contract, the contract can still be illegally anti-competitive. And the law can be used against Apple on that.

And even further more, I still want any and all actions to be taken, through whatever means possible, whether they be through the existing laws/court system, or that is through changing the law to retroactively target Apple and its employees, or if it through game devs working together to oppose apple, so as to make the game companies get more of the money, and for Apple to receive less of it, no matter how it happens.

Re: Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

#630

Post by envolt »

karolkozub wrote: post #47

Wow. That's amazing. That's a 20% increase in revenue for those eligible. I'm guessing they decided the increased value of their products from more smaller developers creating apps for the platform is greater than the lost revenue. If I understand correctly though, since it's a hard cutoff it creates this gap between 1m and ~1.2m where you're actually worse off by making more money pre-tax. 999k --[-15%]--> 849k 1000…

I like how tax brackets are in India.

250k-500k - 5% 500k-1000k - 20% 1000k- ∞ - 30% (figures in INR)

the brackets varies every FY, but are same more or less.

It doesn't discriminate with border cases.

Post reply on HN