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

Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 208 posts

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#31

Post by musicale »

ronsor wrote: post #14
musicale wrote: post #13

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee , and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism , not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play,…

Game console systems are insanely closed and locked down platforms. I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern, so the fact that their fees are comparable to Apple's only shows that Apple needs to loosen the purse strings a little.

> I consider anything console manufacturers do to be an antipattern

Perhaps. On the other hand, Nintendo is a beloved company and the Switch is an incredibly successful system with fantastic games. So the walled garden seems to have worked out reasonably well.

I'm not sure why you're responding to my parent comment though, as it was descriptive and not prescriptive.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#32

Post by shaboinkin »

Bilal_io wrote: post #22
shaboinkin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel an unintended fallout of an eventual mandate to allow 3rd party stores on iOS would be Apple charging a license for the frameworks and tooling they provide. Something like, "Want to use CoreML? Well, each API call will cost you. Or would you rather take our 30% flat rate?"

I am just being pedantic, but 30% is the opposite of what a flat rate is. CoreML being a phone feature, then restricting it behind a paywall sounds like something customers would sue apple for. CoreML is already bundled in the price you pay when you purchase an iPhone. It will only work as a cloud service.

As I understand it, 30% pays for all of the frameworks Apple develops that is available to you when you fire up Xcode, as well as everything involved with running the store, and they take their cut when you post on their store and sell stuff. If a law comes by and says Sorry Apple, you need to provide a way for other stores to exist in your ecosystem, well, something is going to have to pay for the development of these frameworks they provide.

>then restricting it behind a paywall sounds like something customers would sue apple for

Slightly difference scenario here but I feel it's similar. In my last job my company bought a system from Oracle that did a bunch of number crunching for processing images to be printed. As I understood it, Oracle charged for utilizing more cores, even though it was an on premise system and everything was already in the box ready to go.

If Apple, or anyone, makes hardware and wants to charge a license to use said hardware, isn't that legal? This sounds like BMW charging a license for their heated seats. The hardware is already there and ready to go, but is behind a paywall.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#34

Post by smoldesu »

musicale wrote: post #26
smoldesu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "core problem" isn't Apple's rate - they're free to charge whatever they want. The real issue is that the App Store has no competition, so Apple could charge 90% and developers would have no choice but to abide or abandon the platform.

The evidence on the Android side doesn't seem to support this line of reasoning. There are multiple app stores on Android (including Amazon's), and sideloading is permitted, yet there is still a dispute over the platform fee rate that Google is charging for Google Play. At the end of the day, it's a dispute over money, and specifically the platform commission rate: developers want a bigger cut of the retail app price…

My comment doesn't detract from that demand. What I'm pointing out is that Apple will suffer from this at a much larger scale, therefore it makes sense that they will fight tooth-and-nail to stop it.

The 'platform fee' shpiel is a distraction from the real problem: iOS must allow alternative storefronts if it wants to survive long-term antitrust scrutiny. There is no other logical outcome.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#36

Post by musicale »

smoldesu wrote: post #34
musicale wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence on the Android side doesn't seem to support this line of reasoning. There are multiple app stores on Android (including Amazon's), and sideloading is permitted, yet there is still a dispute over the platform fee rate that Google is charging for Google Play. At the end of the day, it's a dispute over money, and specifically the platform commission rate: developers want a bigger cut of the retail app price…

My comment doesn't detract from that demand. What I'm pointing out is that Apple will suffer from this at a much larger scale, therefore it makes sense that they will fight tooth-and-nail to stop it. The 'platform fee' shpiel is a distraction from the real problem: iOS must allow alternative storefronts if it wants to survive long-term antitrust scrutiny. There is no other logical outcome.

That may indeed be true. However, the core dispute over App Store fees will likely remain, irrespective of additional app stores or sideloading, just as it has on Google Play.

Solving the single app store antitrust issue doesn't solve the platform fee dispute.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#37

Post by EMIRELADERO »

echelon wrote: post #12
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your hard work. On the DMCA realm, I cannot wait for the Green v. DOJ case to bear fruit. If it succeeds, the DMCA anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions will be ruled unconstitutional altogether. Last we heard about the case was the oral argument for the appeal on 9/12, but it left a sour taste in my mouth. The judges were most focused on whether Green had standing to bring the case (becaus…

I know it's a lot to ask, but would you mind providing some additional background as to the different sides and the potential outcomes / ramifications of this case? You seem to have a lot of context in this area. Could this lead to a VCR/DVR future where we're once again able to record or download steaming content? Platforms and DRM have taken us a step back from the freedoms we once enjoyed. I would be overjoyed to…

The challenged provisions of the DMCA have nothing to do with what you do with the material that is being protected by the technological measure that it makes illegal to bypass. That's what makes it so overbroad and constitutionally troublesome.

Section 1201 makes it illegal to bypass access controls regardless of what you do after. You could bypass a technological protection measure that controls access to a copyrighted work and do nothing with the work itself after and it would still be illegal.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#38

Post by encryptluks2 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #33
Melatonic wrote: post #5

Sounds like they should change their name from the App Association to the App(le) Association

Apple Industry Association of America

Training users to be obedient little cogs in the machine

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#39

Post by musicale »

vorpalhex wrote: post #15
musicale wrote: post #13

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee , and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism , not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play,…

Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast. They don't deserve 30% of that.

> Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast

How true. Well, except for:

- designing and manufacturing the hardware

- marketing and selling the hardware

- creating and promoting the Books app

- popularizing podcasts with the iPod

- creating and promoting the Podcasts app

etc.

> They don't deserve 30% of that.

This illustrates my point: the core dispute is over platform fees charged by the App Store.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#40

Post by Apocryphon »

shaboinkin wrote: post #32
Bilal_io wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am just being pedantic, but 30% is the opposite of what a flat rate is. CoreML being a phone feature, then restricting it behind a paywall sounds like something customers would sue apple for. CoreML is already bundled in the price you pay when you purchase an iPhone. It will only work as a cloud service.

As I understand it, 30% pays for all of the frameworks Apple develops that is available to you when you fire up Xcode, as well as everything involved with running the store, and they take their cut when you post on their store and sell stuff. If a law comes by and says Sorry Apple, you need to provide a way for other stores to exist in your ecosystem, well, something is going to have to pay for the development of the…

In a different world, Apple would embrace alternate app stores- by having them operate on their own terms.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848

Many walled gardens, growing different plants, landscaped in different styles, with different admission fees, but ultimately conforming to basic principles and paying their dues to the Apple botanical society.

Apple Authorized App Merchants.

Post reply on HN