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

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

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 825 posts

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

#641

Post by jollybean »

nolok wrote: 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…

The 30% cut is fine - VISA charges a % and so do many other businesses.

It's the 'market power / monopoly' issue that is the problem.

Apple needs to allow 3rd part app stores and direct downloads and that's it.

They can keep their 15%/30% if they think the market will allow that.

The 'security' issue is a canard because the Android world is not effectively less secure. Moreover, Apple could still make certain security/notarization requirements, strictly technical.

Too many people are weirdly supportive of their control - it's totally fine and frankly understandable if you want to 'just use the App Store' - but it's not good to limit others.

Vertical consolidation within industries is usually a bad thing, not always, but it's definitely bad when these power/monopolies are created.

On the other side of the equation, Apple has a 'Monopsony' in other areas as well (exclusive buyer by force) which can be looked at.

The M1 chip, design, great apps - compete there, but indirect downloads, 'self repair', probably battery/disk/memory upgrade replacement etc. should be open.

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

#642

Post by kevingadd »

donmcronald wrote: post #588
lovelyviking wrote: post #522

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.

The developer pays the code signing fee once instead of each end user paying the fee on an ongoing basis. Not comparable

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

#643

Post by simion314 »

simondotau wrote: post #426
simion314 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) . And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for ant…

You are eliding the distinction between rules that can be enforced by the API and rules that can only be enforced by pronouncement. Anyone can do the former. I buy an iPhone because Apple does a decent job of the latter. Now of course if Apple is forced to permit third party stores, they’re going to be forced to make it really easy to get on these stores. Epic, Google and Amazon are going to make sure of that. So thi…

>If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.

So is fine if Apple does not put iMessages on other stores or let open source people to create a bridge to talk with iMessages.

If there are many people like you say 50% that won't unlock the phone then Google and FB will put their apps on all stores because there are more users. But if you are just 1% then it is fair that the 99% should not suffer because you want unfair stuff because it advantages you.

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

#644

Post by kevingadd »

nicky0 wrote: post #579
nolok wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point. If you're serving a file from AWS to ten people or to a massive userbase what happens ? Does AWS pricing change once you have a certain amount of traffic ? No, you pay per GB delivered. Apple should offer that kind of pricing, or a price per user (download) if they want. And Apple should also be free to offer the % as an alternative if they wish, "don't want to bother with details ? Jus…

Your flat fee model would really suck for free apps.

There's already a flat fee for free apps (the developer fees), and every customer has already paid a flat fee (buying the phone)

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

#645

Post by kevingadd »

amelius wrote: post #529
minhazm wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not take a cut of this. It's charged to your existing payment method on file. It's closer to a physical good, since it's an enhancement for an actual physical good.

Perhaps we should be selling dummy physical goods with our software then. E.g. software $1, coffee mug $100.

Some of the big loot box mobile games in fact use this model to pull in more revenue - they sell soundtracks or other goods at marked-up prices that happen to include in-game bonuses you'd otherwise be giving Apple 30% for.

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

#646

Post by Spivak »

colinplamondon wrote: post #404
willtim wrote: post #398

App makers complain about Apple's dominance, yet seem to put significantly more effort into iOS apps than Android apps.

iOS customers are far higher income and spend more money - they're way more valuable. You get more revenue per user with way lower support costs. From a demographic standpoint it's a no-brainer.

Hence why Apple thinks that they can get away with charging 30% just for access to the platform. I’m really having a hard time understanding the other side of this argument. Apple largely keeps to themselves and doesn’t mess with other markets.

Competition among products on the shelves of Kroger seems like such a silly thing.

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

#647

Post by simion314 »

yunohn wrote: post #383
briandear wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is rational. Other EU countries have the ability to lower taxes right? It’s ironic that the EU is suing Apple because Spotify doesn’t want to pay 15% to Apple, yet the same people complaining of that have no problem with Apple attempting to avoid higher costs by having a non-Irish EU headquarters.

Government taxes are a different ballgame than private company (Apple) profits. Interesting that you see them as the same thing. :/

Yeah , the Apple tax makes Apple lazy and focus on how to suck even more, also makes some rich dudes richer while government tax goes into research, schools, roads etc.

Apple tax should not exist, you should pay for what you use or have freedom to chose exactly how you can chose web hosting companies and plans.

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

#648

Post by nodamage »

echelon wrote: post #566
paulmd wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's all relative - no system is perfect, some bad apps do slip through the cracks. compared to Android, though? far far better, Google literally doesn't even try to police that sort of stuff, they just list it all anyway and take their cut, when this stuff comes to light Apple delists it but Google is perfectly satisfied to keep raking in their cut. That's the difference.

> compared to Android, though? far far better Where's your data to support this? Both platforms host scams and malware, despite the fact that they claim operating an app store is a means of protecting consumers. Microsoft does just fine allowing downloads from the web and presenting a permissions and security screen. They even have a database of signatures for apps that get flagged. You don't see people screaming blo…

> Where's your data to support this?

Multiple mobile/security companies publish annual malware reports, for example here is Nokia's Threat Intelligence Report for 2020 (https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...):

Figure 3 provides a breakdown of infections by device type in 2020. Among smartphones, Android devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. Android devices were responsible for 26.64% of all infections, Windows/PCs for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for iPhones.

I wouldn't say this is "just fine". Perhaps you (and most HN commenters) have the technical knowledge to avoid installing malware but the vast majority of people using these devices do not.

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

#649

Post by jollybean »

indigochill wrote: post #620
AlexandrB wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is providing significant benefit to either consumers or developers for their 30% cut when they seem incapable of reigning in obvious fraud. In addition, I think Apple pushing subscriptions as a solution for long term app funding (instead of upgrade pricing or other op…

> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it? It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is not a utility or natural…

"what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? "

They key word is 'platform'.

It's designed for 'broad public consumption', this is different than other, purely internal aspects of their service.

So Ford or GM cannot stop you from buying other vendors stuff and tweaking your car. The very thought would be absurd. A car is designed to be at very least maintained, they can void warranties etc. but not have absolute control.

BMW is stricter about those things, which is fine, but it's still outside of their control.

Finally, I think the reach of the platforms actually does matter - once something becomes a public good, we treat it differently.

Imagine if the electric company in 1921 only ever let you buy appliances 'made by them' suited for 'their electricity', it's just not good.

A similar situation is MS using their platform monopoly to dominate other areas, such as MS Office, which I think should have been regulated as well. Using a platform monopoly, companies can definitely dominating adjacent economies - even while providing an inferior product or experience, which is bad for everyone.

To your point, it's probably worthwhile for us to start defining in legal terms what we mean by 'platform' so the rules can be applied fairly.

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

#650

Post by kevingadd »

georgyo wrote: post #161
anoncake wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the situation is better on Android, not using the Play Store isn't a real option in most cases. Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates.

The bigger difference is that the play store does not mandate using Google as the payment processor for transactions and subscriptions. Spotify would have no reason to look for an alternative app distribution mechanism on Android.

Google requires you to use them for payments, that's been policy for a while. (They do it because Apple proved you can get away with it)
Post reply on HN