Live data from Hacker News

EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

cnbc.com

591–600 of 825 posts

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#591
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right? If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.

Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.

> Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform?

Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean things like removing any links to your website, because users could buy a subscription there instead of on through the app.

> Is it artificially raising prices?

Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#592
post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ? ... > It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the same in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me. Their current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for services and infrastructure usage, it's…

> I'm curious if you've ever made the same argument for credit cards, debit cards and the like. All of them charge a percentage to the seller too (and many a times it's a fixed fee plus a percentage). I always thought debit was a fixed fee. I just looked up one of the most common processors in Canada and it says the max fee is $0.035 going as low as $0.02 if you fall into a market segment that skews towards less than…

Non-credit rails are region specific and usually avoid higher fees typical of credit card rails (often even free).

The processor fees for credit card rails exist primarily nowadays to support two things: fraud and perks.

With a debit transaction, your fraud protection is usually much, much lower (often non-existent). It's usually equivalent to handing over cash. With a credit card, you can call them up and get the transaction reversed pretty trivially.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#593
post #527
post #391

Lots of comments around the line of "ok maybe 30% is too much, but we can all agree they offer a valuable service, so what percentage should they take ?" Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ? Give a price to be listed in store, to be reviewed, to be downloaded by a user, ... And let company pay what they owe you. Let them pay throug…

> Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ? ... > It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the same in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me. Their current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for services and infrastructure usage, it's…

This isn't remotely equivalent or comparable. First, you're free to choose other forms of payment. Visa isn't holding a gun to your head. I know many sellers simply adjust their prices if you're paying credit -- see almost every gas station in the US. You can't do that with Apple.

Second, the fees actually benefit the customer. They're there to protect the customer from fraud, and to provide perks. I have no idea how I benefit from Apple's fees. Seriously.

Comically, I think Apple should adapt Epic's model for unreal: free for the first $1MM of revenue, only then they start to take a cut.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For starters, the AppStore is not "good" (from a customer perspective -- it sucks, the search is basically unusable except for exact string matches, and still then it shows you the competitor's ad for almost the whole screen before what you're actually looking for), and I don't even know what "fast" means in this context. Probably not review time, and definitely not "quickness of features" -- it took 5 years just to…

> For starters, the AppStore is not "good" That is your opinion. There is no merit in this subjective standpoint from a legal perspective unless you're willing to share the metric by which you arrived at this judgement. > the fast/cheap/good thing (while for starters not being some actual "law"), is meant to apply to engineering and not market dynamics That's exactly the context in which I mention it. The iPhone, ope…

> For starters, the AppStore is not "good" That is your opinion. There is no merit in this subjective standpoint from a legal perspective unless you're willing to share the metric by which you arrived at this judgement.

You brought up goodness with fast/good/cheap! And you certainly provided zero "metrics" in defense of its goodness, I at least provided my perspective as a customer with a concrete issue. I literally provided a specific metric, search quality, immediately following the sentence. You OTOH just take it as a given that the store is "good," unless your implication was that the AppStore is "fast and cheap but not good," but I doubt that's the point you were trying to make.

> I don't know what point you're making with this. We're in a thread literally discussing removing a freedom from Apple.

The point is you believe that Apple can ahead-of-time know the cheapest price for something. You posit that a competitor on the iPhone would be incapable of arriving at a lower price. And for the record, if you read my comments, I never say that Apple should be forced to allow this. I think they should do this because it would be better for them and for me the customer. I think they are silly to continue putting themselves in the ire of so many groups by being so obstinate about this product, but even separate from that, it would give them fantastic arguments in their relationships with developers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26796845

> Setting aside the obvious difference, how is this different than outlawing murder, except for one day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be directed towards the less stringent alternative. You're just opening up the gates for a race to the bottom, something we've already had enough of IMO (and FWIW, I agree with you here: "I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in").

Yes, setting aside the obvious difference. I have provided a clear example. HKMap.live is an app that Apple took down to appease China. The AppStore creates a single point of failure for nations to target and cut off. Most people here think it was pretty shitty to remove that app while the citizens of Hong Kong were fighting for their voice. Maybe in your eyes that's the exact same thing as "The Purge" (I honestly can't believe this is where this conversation has devolved), but it isn't for me.

Here is a simpler example: Tor isn't on the Mac AppStore, but guess what, I can still get it on my Mac. And that's a good thing. I don't have the needs of a journalist abroad, but I'm glad they can safely surf the net even though I don't have those worries. I can understand why Apple doesn't want that front and center on the AppStore to put a target on their backs from countries like China. See, there's actually a lot of stuff that doesn't cleanly fall between good and "murder level bad". Hell, even just allowing FireFox with its own rendering engine is a clear example of a thing that most people don't think is akin to allowing porn onto the store, but that Apple nevertheless does not want on the store.

I frequently acknowledge that I probably would not use side-loading. I in fact would be someone that wants stricter rules on the store. I would actually like for Apple to boot every loot-box based game off the store for example. As far as I'm concerned, it's gambling that targets children. But I accept that that opinion is not shared by everyone, and thus I think we should have a system that allows for strict rules without also having them necessarily affect every single person, with the sole decision-maker being Tim Cook.

The other just ridiculously obvious difference is that I can opt-out of side-loading. No one is saying that every iPhone user should have to be forced to download every shady app on Earth from every second-tier AppStore. That's not the way it is on the Mac. It's so weird that you bring up Windows as the alternative to iOS rather than... the Mac, which seems like a much more obvious comparison point. I wonder if that's because the situation on the Mac isn't a catastrophic hellscape and thus doesn't serve sensationalist fear mongering.

As I said in that comment, side-loading would not have to be on by default, or even easily turned on. It could also warn you on every single app install that doesn't go through the AppStore (which would be awesome, but Apple obviously can't do this on their own AppStore because it goes against their narrative of the safety of the AppStore. Unfortunate, because if they did, it might actually help prevent a lot of these spam subscriptions. At least with out-of-the-AppStore downloads they could put super scary warnings every single time). In fact, it could even be disallowed with parental controls. There are a lot of obvious options in between "only the AppStore" and "MadMax dystopia where anything goes."

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development. The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, and there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI). On top of that, APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possibl…

> your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development Perhaps it is. > The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it. A window is shown where I can type text in. If I receive a phone call or text message, something is displayed on the screen to alert me to that f…

> > The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially,

> How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it.

From iOS 6->7 there was a huge UI change where they went from a skeuomorphic design to a much flatter design. Every year since then they tweaked the design of iOS. Sometimes it might be as easy as building your app against the newer SDK to get the updated look but even that isn't always "easy". That requires the newer Xcode version, oh wait, your signing cert is expired so you need to generate a new one of those, oh wait, this API has been deprecated and you need to switch to the new one that you put off doing, and the list goes on. Then there are the new features that you are expected to support, not by Apple but by your users. Widgets are a great example of this for iOS 14. But again, every version of iOS (or Android for that matter) requires minor tweaks. Sometimes you can get away with ignoring those for 1-2 versions but you are just setting yourself up for some painful tech debt down the road.

> > there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI).

> Did that deprecate compatibility with apps written in the older language?

I wouldn't put a firm date on Obj-C/Java being depreciated but Swift/Kotlin are clearly what Apple and Google respectively are betting the farm on. For iOS specifically, Swift continues to get the attention and it won't be long before we have some new framework that is Swift-only. Already the documentation is pretty heavily bent towards Swift and some frameworks don't make it easy to find the Obj-C docs/examples (and sometimes it just doesn't exist or you have to look at older versions of the SDK). Swift is clearly the future for iOS development and while you can still use Obj-C I'd be very wary of using it on anything new.

> > APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version

> Like what? The context was a text editor app and todo apps. What has changed here?

I'd say it's a combination of design and what's possible. Design and design trends change over time and if you ignore that then you will lose market share to another app that feels/is better to use. As for what is possible, the phones themselves have gained both hardware and software features that, if not leveraged, will also cause you to lose users. Screen size is a good one but take Dark Mode as a example. Some apps had themes and/or "Dark Mode" before it was introduced in iOS but not supporting it now can, once again, lead to you losing users who don't want to be blinded when they open their notes app (or Todo app). When it comes to "what's possible", Drafts, for example, has a whole concept of "Actions" that you can find in their Drafts Directory or make yourself. Things like "Save this note to Dropbox" or "Open Twitter with this note's content as the tweet" and the list goes on. I wrote a Draft Action for myself that grabs the current timestamp of what I'm watching on Plex and inserts it along with the name of the media into my note, I use this to make a note of scenes I like and might want to save for later or share with friends. Are actions strictly required for a notes app? No, I guess not but it was one of the top reasons I picked Drafts for my notes app (along with many other things).

> > Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want.

> That's pretty cool. What about basic features without needing a subscription?

Some apps do that. Apollo lets you use the base app for free but for nice/power-user features you have to pay for a subscription. The developer of that app updates it regularly, fixes bugs, and is active on his app's subreddit. Apollo is a Reddit client so not only does he have to deal with normal app development issues but with changes Reddit might make to their platform/api. Similarly, Twitter apps have had a number of challenges to address in the last 5+ years when it comes to integrating with the Twitter API.

> > Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category?

> Yup. It's almost always an app that's written in some trendy language, using some cloud feature, or some paid-for app. I use lots of free software on my laptop without that problem.

I mean... I have plenty of iOS games that have died because they were never updated. I paid for them once and now they don't run at all on my phone, they are buggy, or don't support my screen size. Mobile development is difficult and needs to be ongoing which leads us to subscriptions seeing how there isn't a better method out there that I'm aware of. I like the idea of fallback subscriptions (like what JetBrains does with their IDEs) but that's just not possible in the App Store or Play Store as they work today. Not to mention that idea falls apart when "services" are involved like with Carrot Weather/Weather Nerd or even something like Overcast that uses backend servers to sync your podcast feed.

> Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-consumer cloud email providers). Games from 20 years ago are a hit or a miss. A lot of times they work just fine with an emulator.

> And I've already paid for all of those. Once.

> Why should the iPhone be any different?

I guess it comes down to what you want out of a text editor. Maybe calling it a text editor isn't even really fair based on what I expect out of mine but take a look at something like BBEdit. It's been around for practically the entire lifetime of the Mac yet it continues to put out updates. Some of what's in those updates are just compatibility/bug fixes but speed and new features are also a big part of it too. Think of git, BBEdit has git support but 30 years ago that wasn't even a thing. Nowadays it is table stakes for most code editors. BBEdit charges for the new major versions of it's app and to me, if you are releasing on a regular schedule, that's pretty much the same as a subscription. Subscriptions allow a company to plan better and for users to get software at a much cheaper initial price while being able to leave at any point if they aren't happy with the software. I think this is overall a good thing.

If you are happy with 30 year old apps then more power to you but that's not been my experience on the desktop nor mobile. I bought Prompt (an SSH client from Panic) when it first came out and then a few years later bought Prompt 2 (Prompt 1 was written pre-iOS 7 and looked very dated by the time I updated). Now Prompt 2 looks dated and has 1 foot in the grave and the other on a banana peal and I'm looking at apps like Termius as a replacement. I don't love going from 1-time to subscription but both Prompt apps made it very clear that if you pay 1 time then don't expect any updates, you get what you get and that's that. Termius may cost me more in the long run but if it is continuously updated and adds features then I'll be happy. For example, it's supports Mosh now but there might be some new protocol in the future that people switch to.

Bottom line, tech marches on and apps that don't adapt will be left for ones that do. Subscriptions help solve part of that problem by incentivizing developers to keep their apps updated or people will leave for ones that do.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#596
post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assertion ignores that apple makes a profit off the 30% cut. In other words: it doesn't correspond to a real cost to Apple.

Disagree. If Apple only had their Music app, they wouldn’t have to maintain the whole ecosystem that comes along with the app store that allows Spotify to exist as an iOS app. Maintaining that system is where the 30% goes. Would anyone then say Apple had an unfair advantage as to who could have a streaming platform on iOS? Spotify would be free then and are now to make a web based player like youtube or soundcloud.

Strange how Spotify managed to create and distribute their app entirely without Apple's "help" on macOS, but would somehow be incapable of doing the same on iOS.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget about 30%! What about 100$ each year for the right to properly run your own application on your own iphone/ipad if you want it to work offline longer than a week? Or am I missing something?

> Or am I missing something? That’s cheap compared to the code signing racket on PC.

It's honestly about the same, cost wise. $100 for Apple, I've seen as low as $170 for Windows. If anything, Apple is worse because I require an Apple device to sign, though you can work around that with hosted CI.

Apple actually arbitrarily adjusts the price for non-US regions. For some reason they want twice as much from me here.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#598
post #391

Lots of comments around the line of "ok maybe 30% is too much, but we can all agree they offer a valuable service, so what percentage should they take ?" Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ? Give a price to be listed in store, to be reviewed, to be downloaded by a user, ... And let company pay what they owe you. Let them pay throug…

I think the abolition of percentage fees needs to happen across a bunch of industries. Property, recruitment, certain aspects of finance (e.g. money transfer).

It's really really annoying, and it feels like people put up with it because "that's how it's always been done".

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#599
post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, the percentage of Apple's cut isn't the key part of this EU case. Certainly doesn't help that it's the current 30% but it being 15% won't change the fundamental issues being argued - whether Apple is abusing its market power and shutting competitors out of or subjecting them to unfair practices in its iOS ecosystem. E.g. unfairly favoring its own Music app. I think it's a fairly straightforward case similar to…

The main difference with Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly in phones like Microsoft had with PCs. Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.

Depends on how one defines "monopoly". Back in the late 1990s, one could theoretically install non-Windows OSes like Linux, Unix or even purchase an Apple Mac. But yes, in practice Microsoft commanded the market and abused its market power.

Also it's market-specific. As the other commenter noted, the market share is region-specific and in the EU higher than 13%. In the U.S. it's even higher at ~47% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-...).

You could argue that users technically have a choice to switch to Android but due to network effect (e.g. your family/friends all use iOS) and lock-in features like iMessage and Facetime, it's often a false choice.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#600
post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should take whatever percentage they want, even 100%, as long as they allow alternative ways to get apps onto the iPhone and to charge for in-app purchases. The problem isn’t that their price is too high, it’s that it’s the only game in town. Allow alternatives and then the price they choose can compete with the rest of them. We can see exactly how valuable of a service it really is.

Oh I absolutely agree. Like another commenter said below, another similar thing are payment processors fees, but it works because 1. you're free to use another one, or checks, or cash, or bitcoin, or anything else, and 2. the EU has strongly regulated their fees and imposed massive limits on what they can charge in %.

But are they similar? One could argue that Visa and PayPal have a monopoly on payments processed via the Visa network/PayPal credit. Consumers are free to choose another ecosystem, but if they don't, the business is forced to make business with them. Similarly, the consumer can choose to buy an Android (or have to phones/tablets), but if they choose Apple only, the business needs to work with Apple.
Post reply on HN