151–160 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can the “second most popular phone” have a monopoly?
You don't have to be the most popular to be a monopoly. Not even close.
If there is another - more popular provider. Isn’t it at the very least a duopoly? Or are we redefining words now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends. If we’re talking about the details of the implementation, maybe. If it’s about the commission that still needs to be paid, then no. That’s directly mentioned in the original ruling by the district court, a commission is due regardless.
I think the real problem is unlimited access to accounting books for any business that has an iOS app. This will affect free apps too, since they now have the potential to offer purchases outside the app store. (Obviously, strategic partners and FAANG are exempt.)
Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…
Apple argued from the very beginning that the 30% was its fee for running the App Store, marketing the apps, and storing and delivering the app bundles. The in-app payment system was a convenient way for Apple to collect its commission and a way for Apple to create a unified payment experience for its customers, but it was never the Achilles heel for Apple's business model.
The best case scenario here is that Apple is forced to walk back some of the more onerous requirements they've imposed for whether and how links may be shown. Them putting a price on the payment processor portion of the fee and discounting developers for that portion was inevitable and isn't even malicious compliance, the judge explicitly called this out as a likely outcome in the original ruling:
> First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
> In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods. Of course, any alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to both Apple and the developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30…
There are so many problems with this take. Here are a few: 1) Many App Store apps are completely free, paying nothing to Apple except the $99 per year fee, so they have no stake in this issue. 2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is…
I don't see that as a problem.
> 2) My understanding is that more than 90% of developers in the App Store make less than $1 million per year and thus are covered by the Small Business Program, which charges only 15% rather than 30%. Revenue in the App Store is extremely top-heavy, with most going to a relatively small number of the top developers (such as Epic, previously). How much are developers willing to risk just to lower the 15% cut somewhat?
I can't answer that question for any particular developer. But if my PSP charged me 15% I'd be looking for another one and if my PSP arranged for things in such a way that I'd owe them anyway by virtue of developing for a particular piece of hardware that they already sold and made their profits on I'd go and do something else with my time. Which is why pianojacq.com is on the web and free instead of an App in the App store because that way Apple/Google don't get to increase their grip on the market regardless of whether or not it is free. I disagree with their business model to the point that I'm not partaking in it at all.
> 3) Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike. Many developers derive their entire income from the App Store, so withdrawing their apps means no income. A wealthy corporation such as Epic can survive, but what about little indie developers?
What about those poor dockworkers? Any kind of battle with the likes of Apple (or your merchant marine overlord) comes at a price. In some cases people died to fight for their rights. 'little indie developers' are still business owners who will either stand up for their rights or they will have to live with the consequences of not doing so. More likely: those that do stand up for their rights will find themselves kicked out of the App store (monopoly power abuse...) and their competition will thrive.
> 4) An individual developer uniterally striking would be futile and self-destructive. Developers would need to be organized and all strike simultaneously.
Yes, you got it. That's exactly what they should do.
> 5) Strikes are very difficult to organize. Forming a union almost always has to come first. And union members typically work together in the same building, which greatly facilitates organization. Whereas there are a huge number of App Store developers scattered all around the world, and they speak different languages. How would you even communicate with all of them to organize?
I would start with looking for places where App developers congregate and start spreading the message (SO / HN / Reddit / whatever remains of /. / any other forum), write a bunch of press releases and build a movement, then, when the numbers are there for the GADA (the Global Appstore Developer Association) I'd announce the first collective action and take it from there.
It will be work, but so what, if you think it is worth it then it's worth doing well.
As for language barriers and such: there's an app for that...
So Apple will be collecting 27% (instead of 30%) for... what exactly? They might just get away with something as crass in a vacuum, but given that the DMA will go into effect very soon, there will be a point of reference in a similar economy, and I don't think it'll be pretty for Apple. US regulators (federal or state; I could see something equivalent to GDPR and CCPA) will be taking a very close look.
> So Apple will be collecting 27% (instead of 30%) for... what exactly? Off the top of my head... - Bandwidth - Running the App Store for users - Marketing the App Store - App review - Security efforts to keep malware off the store - Making App Store optimisation tools for developers There's a lot of moving parts to this. You could argue that none of this is necessary if you sideload, but distribution is worth a lot…
Even if for some reason you believe that's not true, there's no way they need 27% of all purchase revenue on the store to fund that stuff. The numbers simply don't check out. 30% was an arbitrary cut and that's why they can easily drop it to 27% or (for small devs as of recently) 15%.
In the situations we're discussing, both the app developer and every customer have already given apple hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of revenue. Out of that, Apple has a healthy margin.
Now we're talking about Apple sticking their fingers into developers' pockets for every single transaction even if Apple's participation in that transaction is limited to updating a couple database rows to indicate that Customer XXXXX bought DLC Package YYYY in App ZZZZZ. There is simply no way that is worth 30%. They're not doing that much work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the egregious bit? Because Apple were so successful with their product they should have a cap on how much they capitalise? Do you get upset at business class in airlines? Or cinema food being so expensive? Isn’t this the point of capitalism?
Leaving aside the potential for a critique of capitalism as a whole... it depends on what you compare it to, right? (Or, I don't get upset at the existence of business class, but I do get upset at excessive nickel-and-diming with fees in coach.) I'd tend to think of the Mac as the most-direct comparison point, where there's the App Store but also where a developer who wants to handle everything themselves can.
Capitalism says: the market will figure it out.
Given Apple does not have a monopoly. I don’t see how any of this is a problem. If they want you to sacrifice your first born child in order to publish an app on their App Store. That’s okay. Just don’t publish your app to their phone.
This feels like a straw that breaks the camel's back kind of moment. Apple has gotten away with a tremendous amount (being an astonishingly greedy company. All companies are de facto greedy, but Apple is just next level in its egregious entitlement), but there is simply zero way this stands. And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that…
The details of the process of getting approval for links may be out of line, but the idea that simply using a different payment processor would remove the entirety of the 30% commission was always a pipe dream. Apple has always been adamant that the fee is for the service of using the App Store, not the payment processor, and that you owe them for sales made regardless of whether they're able to take the money direct…
Am I getting this right? Say I use Stripe as my payment processor. Stripe takes 2.9% + $0.30, then Apple takes 27% so I'm at 29.9% + $0.30 being taken out of however much I charge for my app? For a $10 app, $0.30 is 3% putting the fee at 32.9%. For the privilege of paying 2.9% more, my users get to see a scary privacy message and when I bill the customer a year later for a subscription, there's a 20-30% chance that t…
Oh absolutely it is. But all app store developers are complicit in enabling that monopoly. What should happen is that all app store developers withdraw their apps until Apple sees the light. But that won't happen because every app store developer will be pitted against their competition in a race to the bottom who will accept the highest fees that Apple is going to impose and sooner or later you'll be back at that 30…
EDIT: Wow, getting downvoted for saying Apple is losing me as a customer with this move is surprising. I don't understand how people on Hacker News of all places want conformity of thought. I switched from using Microsoft products to Apple when Vista came out. Microsoft lost my trust by that point and Macs were a viable alternative. Despite having a Macbook, iPhone, and an Apple Watch it seems like Apple is starting to lose me with this move.