Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by simondotau » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 3:56 AM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #42

shaboinkin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Xcode is free, though. Apple 'takes their cut' when you pay $99/year to be a registered Apple developer. If that's not enough, then maybe they need to review the checkbook aga…

> Xcode is free, though.

Unreal Engine is "free" too.

Except it isn't. Neither Unreal Engine nor Apple's developer frameworks (shipped alongside Xcode) are public domain or copyleft. They're both proprietary code available under a license that permits certain usages, disallows certain usages, is royalty free under some conditions, and requires payment under other conditions.

> Apple 'takes their cut' when

That's not for you to decide. Epic can decide when to take money from developers who use Unreal Engine, and how much they're entitled to. It's equally Apple's decision which payment represents compensation for the developer's use of their intellectual property, and how much they're entitled to.

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

#112

Post by oreally » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 3:59 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #103

musicale wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think you're misunderstanding the GP. They're talking about services provided entirely by other people, e.g. buying ebooks from Amazon. In that light, here are the responses to your bullets: - the hardware I already paid for - this should be included in the price of the hardware (and certainly is in the case of Apple) - I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app - I never listened to a podcast on my iPo…

This. If 'the algorithm' decides not to promote your app, you should have to option to pay less. Unfortunately, there has yet to be good business incentives for a change like this. Hence it feels very much like a winner take all market.

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

#113

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:01 AM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #24

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,…

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.

Amazon threw billions at creating an alternate storefront for Android devices. If they cannot achieve it, then who could? Maybe Samsung, and then it's a triopoly where which store still depends on who sells your phone.

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

#114

Post by modeless » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:23 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #105

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…

While Android is more open than iOS in that alternative app sources are allowed , it's still far from a level playing field. The Play Store has special privileges that third-party ones don't, such as being able to automatically update apps, rather than forcing the user to hit "install" for each individual app to be updated.

This information is outdated. Android 12+ allows alternative stores to update apps automatically.

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

#115

Post by eigen » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:24 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #103

musicale wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think you're misunderstanding the GP. They're talking about services provided entirely by other people, e.g. buying ebooks from Amazon. In that light, here are the responses to your bullets: - the hardware I already paid for - this should be included in the price of the hardware (and certainly is in the case of Apple) - I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app - I never listened to a podcast on my iPo…

> - I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app

Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing offers 2 options: 35% royalty and 70% royalty.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210

You can choose between two royalty options for each of your eBooks: the 35% royalty option and the 70% royalty option.

-If you select the 35% royalty option, your royalty will be 35% of your list price without VAT for each unit sold.

-If you select the 70% royalty option, your royalty will be 70% of your list price without VAT, less delivery costs (average delivery costs are $0.06 per unit sold, and vary by file size), for each eligible book sold to customers in the 70% territories, and 35% of the list price without VAT for each unit sold to customers residing outside the 70% territories.

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

#116

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #41

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?"

"flat rate" means a fee is a fixed amount of money, not a percentage

[deleted]

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

#117

Post by modeless » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

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…

Your reasoning is faulty. There is no Android platform fee for app developers. In fact, alternative Android stores pay no fees at all. The Play Store has fees, and there's a dispute about them, but that doesn't make it analogous to the situation on iOS, which really has an iOS platform fee because it's impossible to install native code on the device you ostensibly own without Apple's ongoing permission.

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

#118

Post by saurik » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:32 AM UTC

customkitchen wrote: post #104

saurik wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly--as someone at the front line of all of this stuff--none of these DMCA related arguments have much "practical" importance in the medium-to-long term :/. (This is not at all to say it is a waste of time or anything: the right to examine products and discuss what you learn is really really important and is the basis of security research, so these lawsuits are extremely important and this DMCA law--which likely…

>the right to examine products and discuss what you learn is really really important and is the basis of security research I hate to push back on you (of all people) for this, but no it's actually not. You are talking too much with your hacker hat on and not enough with your legal hat on. There is quite a difference between accredited security firms doing responsible security research, and random unaffiliated parties…

I'm not sure what you are arguing :(... is your premise that it is sufficient for only "accredited" (is that even a thing? I didn't know that was a thing) security research firms that are, I guess, hired by the company that is selling the product for the world to be safe? As that definitely doesn't seem to be true in practice, and puts a LOT of power in some extremely biased hands :(. It also doesn't, from my understanding, match the intention of the laws either... the weakest part of the Green case (which is what was referenced and which is almost annoyingly-narrowly about security research being published in book form, and so sidesteps any confusion we might be having here with respect to my personal agendas that involve "jailbreaking")--as far as I can tell, as a non-lawyer who spends way too much time talking to the lawyers--is that the DOJ actually came out during the hearing to say they don't see anything wrong with the activity in the first place ;P. I'm thereby really confused that you seem to think this is somehow, I guess, illegal currently? Cause like, AFAIK, it isn't: the issue at hand is whether there is a chilling effect being caused by Section 1201's anti-trafficking provisions on someone's first amendment right to explain not only that something is insecure but in exactly what way it is insecure (as I, for example, often do in my post-mortems: see my articles on Optimism or Master Key, etc.) when those exploits happen to affect an "effective" (lol: I hate that wording) technological measure protecting someone's copyright, as, in the US, we tend to be pretty adamant about reserving the right to publish information.

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

#119

Post by tomByrer » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:39 AM UTC

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…

But like Windows having IE/Edge installed by default (& being sued for it), Google Play is the default store for Android, & 95% of public doesn't know otherwise.

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

#120

Post by tomByrer » Tue, Sep 20, 2022, 4:43 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #110

fastball wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding the GP. They're talking about services provided entirely by other people, e.g. buying ebooks from Amazon. In that light, here are the responses to your bullets: - the hardware I already paid for - this should be included in the price of the hardware (and certainly is in the case of Apple) - I don't use the Books app, I use the Amazon Kindle app - I never listened to a podcast on my iPo…

> this should be included in the price of the hardware But it isn’t. One of the reasons Apple continues to support old hardware is they collect revenue from the App Store on older devices. The platform ecosystem is more than just device hardware + server hardware + bandwidth.

Alt reason why "Apple continues to support old hardware": If some people found out that they NEED to get a new phone every 2 years that costs $1,000, then they might look to another cell phone manufacturer.

I'm sure the store is a factor though!