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

141–150 of 208 posts

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

#141

Post by jongjong »

Oddly enough, I don't particularly care that apple charges 30% on their app store. I don't use Apple products.

Apple is one of the few corporations whose customers I feel nothing but contempt for. I don't find their approach coercive; it's just plain brainwashing. Businesses could just build browser-based apps; it's possible to make them user-friendly but businesses who build software are just as brainwashed as Apple customers.

I don't feel the same way about Google or Facebook on the business/advertiser side; I think their monopolization of user's attention is genuinely coercive and there are no alternatives for businesses. For a company to monopolize their own platform is not at all the same as them monopolizing a public platform like the web. The web is the last frontier of the global free market.

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

#142

Post by dietr1ch »

modeless wrote: post #114
josephcsible wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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This information is outdated.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.

But manufacturers are holding users back on old Android versions

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

#143

Post by realusername »

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,…

Personally, I just don't want to deal with the app store at all, it's not about the fee, iOS is a similar platform to desktop

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

#144

Post by gernb »

fingerlocks wrote: post #121
modeless wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can install whatever you want on an iPhone if you’re willing to compile it yourself with one or two shell commands. You do need access to a Mac. Contrary to popular belief, you can even install a non-safari browser: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...

That is not a non-safari browser

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

tomByrer wrote: post #120
Retric wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by realusername »

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…

I don't want to use xcode either, their tooling is terrible and the only reason I use it is because of Apple intentionally obfuscating their build and release process.

That's strange people think as it's providing some kind of "value" which needs to be paid, in reality it's the opposite, it's a problematic byproduct of the monopoly which I would get rid of given the choice.

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

#147

Post by sircastor »

shaboinkin wrote: post #18
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,…

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’m sure there would be piles of APIs supplied by other manufacturers that devs wold flock to. That doesn’t mean that they’d be any good. Part of what Apple did is make its software very performant for the hardware. They want the experience to be good for the user, and the Dev might not care that their app chews through the battery. I doubt that apple try to split their dev base like this.

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

#148

Post by chii »

musicale wrote: post #36
smoldesu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it does, because those who don't want to pay the platform fee would move off to the other store-front (and not use any services provided by the apple appstore).

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

#149

Post by jasonm23 »

bruce511 wrote: post #122
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.

Your point of view here will depend somewhat on your level of success. In the current model, the barrier to entry is pretty low. $99 gets you xcode, plus you need done hardware. Once you've made something you need to reach a market. A good market place (like a regular super market) brings together suppliers and customers. That market has costs. One model for costs is to charge each app the same amount. Say, for examp…

> But its your choice to join their game, or not. There's no bait-and-switch here.

You are saying flagrantly anti-competition without saying it directly.

Android platform has multiple sources of apps, and side-loading. Ruthless exploitation of a market has never been tolerated for long.

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

#150

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

treeman79 wrote: post #66
atonse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your best source on the suicide nets is from 11 years ago?

They got really serious about ending issues after bad publicity.

They are a modern multi-national corporation. They don’t care about anything until it hits their bottom line.

I don’t really understand why so many commenters go out of their way to defend Apple for free here. They have a paid PR department for that.

Post reply on HN