31–40 of 825 posts
Maybe I’m too cynical, but how will Apple get out of this? What’s the trick they’ll use this time? After all, this is only a “preliminary view.”
If I was Tim Apple, probably allow third party payment providers (from a list of Apple-approved providers that have to handle disputes, unsubs etc in an approved way). And then charge a per-download fee to apps which offer in-app subscriptions without using Apple's payment option.
Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).
According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue.
So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing.
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees...
OK, that's the fact side of things. As for opinion, I think it's ridiculous that App vendors can't point out alternative payment options in their apps. That's a step too far. I'm also a bit concerned about digital sales, I can see why Epic doesn't want to pay 30% on every skin or loot box sold in Fortnite, but it's a free app otherwise distributed on the App Store for nothing so I think some sort of deal needs to be struck there.
Other than that, I think the iPhone is Apple's product. They get to decide how it works, and users get to decide whether that's acceptable or not. Apple (and NeXT) spent billions of dollars over many decades, taking huge commercial risks to build that platform. A decade ago we were constantly being told they were inevitably doomed and open always wins. Well no, some of us like the way Apple does things and don't want it to massively change. Some things sure, they're not perfect, but I do not support changes that would severely undermine the integrity of their product. You can always buy an Android phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that unpopular? I think all but a fairly vocal minority of people (probably direct/indirect beneficiaries) would agree.
"Their platform, their rules" – there are many people who say this, especially on HN.
The rules applies to Spotify, but not to Apple music. Apple should make Apple music a separate entity, and make it pay 30%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the marke…
starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly. Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.
EDIT (cannot reply):
So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair.
If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair.
But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair?
I honestly don’t understand this logic.
HN when government does something they like about tech: This was a no-brainer. HN when government does something they dislike about tech: Tech is too complex for government to understand.
monopolies, though... governments understand that part very, very well.
HN when government does something they like about tech: This was a no-brainer. HN when government does something they dislike about tech: Tech is too complex for government to understand.
But this is EU rule, so if you are from US it won't apply to you anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee. What EU seems to argue is this: 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good... 2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different area…
I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the marke…
iOS is a choice. Android is a choice. Neither is a choice. Back in the day, we had Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile among others to choose from.
The decisions made by the respective companies affected adoption and now we’re left with Android and iOS for now.
People compare phone choice to things like electricity and water which makes no sense.
Let’s ignore Apple and Google specifically here. Is the argument that all platforms should accommodate all users and use cases for free? Is the argument that companies should have a gap on profit margins?
Do we really want the government involved in all minutiae? Can’t we just vote with our wallet. The top 1000 app developers could just figure something out and move to a new platform if the money issues are too much no?
I’m happy to have a discussion on this with anyone who replies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that unpopular? I think all but a fairly vocal minority of people (probably direct/indirect beneficiaries) would agree.
"Their platform, their rules" – there are many people who say this, especially on HN.
Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).
> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can operate elsewhere. 2. What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
Defining "elsewhere" is important here.
They cannot operate on the same platform through alternative installation methods or the web (considering how Apple limits PWAs to be dead in the water). They also cannot reach these users through other platforms because of the immense lock in that Apple builds up intentionally. [1]
So they can operate "elsewhere" but they cannot reach those consumers. They are owned by Apple.
Regardless of how you feel about the legalities or how much freedom you think a company should have, that is obviously bad for competition and consumers.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...