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

US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#231

Post by lxgr »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #210
justinclift wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. Isn't that a forced situation though, unlike with macOS? With macOS anyone can throw an application on a website (GitHub, etc) and the users can download the application and run it. To get rid of the scary warnings, there's even a $99 dev membership that can be used to sign the macOS binaries. iOS developers don't have any choices to host…

It's been a while but I'm pretty sure signing and notarizing is required on macOS now, without disabiling SIP. At least for things downloaded from a browser. My interpretation is that $99/year is required if you want to avoid your users needing to use the terminal.

If they’d simply allow the same on iOS, I’m willing to bet that essentially all of their lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny would disappear overnight.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#232

Post by johnnyanmac »

lolinder wrote: post #195
enragedcacti wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Is it just me or does this argument seem…

I agree that it's an oddly-applied pricing system, but it's not unique. Apple's differential pricing functions similarly to student and senior discounts—it's an acknowledgment that some customers are harder to get than others and it's worth it to the company to meet those customers where they are. Some apps don't make any money at all, and Apple wants to let those exist and so they get a free pass. For others, Apple…

>Is it fair? Probably not. But I see no reason to believe it's illegal.

If they take it too far, that's how you get into antitrust territory. That's why Epic's court case against Google ruled in Epic's favor, as it was giving paying off devs to not make their own app stores and blocked OEMs from making deals with other studios.

So I'd say this puts apple on thin ground. I'm sure this won't be the last high profile lawsuit over the app store this decade.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#233

Post by justinclift »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #210
justinclift wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. Isn't that a forced situation though, unlike with macOS? With macOS anyone can throw an application on a website (GitHub, etc) and the users can download the application and run it. To get rid of the scary warnings, there's even a $99 dev membership that can be used to sign the macOS binaries. iOS developers don't have any choices to host…

It's been a while but I'm pretty sure signing and notarizing is required on macOS now, without disabiling SIP. At least for things downloaded from a browser. My interpretation is that $99/year is required if you want to avoid your users needing to use the terminal.

Ahhh. I thought that there was still a button in "System Settings" -> "Security" (or similar) that let users launch an unsigned app anyway.

But it could indeed have been removed in some macOS version without my noticing. :)

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#234

Post by ralmidani »

llm_nerd wrote: post #74

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…

> And FWIW, I'm an Apple fan and find Tim S a completely unsympathetic character. But seeing the hilariously absurd lengths that people will go to justify Apple's outrageous greed grows old.

Heh, there are still folks who actually grasp nuance… I have an iPhone, despise Apple in general, but consider their business disputes on a case-by-case basis. So for example, Apple is right to ignore Facebook’s plea to be allowed to track users, and simultaneously wrong in its App Store monopolistic money-grabbing.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#235

Post by abhinavk »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #210
justinclift wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. Isn't that a forced situation though, unlike with macOS? With macOS anyone can throw an application on a website (GitHub, etc) and the users can download the application and run it. To get rid of the scary warnings, there's even a $99 dev membership that can be used to sign the macOS binaries. iOS developers don't have any choices to host…

It's been a while but I'm pretty sure signing and notarizing is required on macOS now, without disabiling SIP. At least for things downloaded from a browser. My interpretation is that $99/year is required if you want to avoid your users needing to use the terminal.

You can still run an unsigned binary using right-click menu > Open.

https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/mac-help/mh40616/mac

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#236

Post by johnnyanmac »

callalex wrote: post #223
scarface_74 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all the developers I assume you care about left the App Store, Apple wouldn’t care. The apps that make the majority of the money on the App Store are slimy pay to win games where “whales” buy coins and loot boxes. The other popular apps are front end for services where Apple doesn’t collect a dime like Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, etc.

If iPhones didn’t run Instagram and TikTok they would sell very few phones.

And it's exactly why Netflix gets special treatment and Apple isn't auditing them yearly. They care about money but even more about marketshare

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#237

Post by scythe »

rideontime wrote: post #65
radley wrote: post #39

There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...

My eyes glazed over while scrolling the OP's list of restrictions. I'd probably want to sue rather than try to implement all that too.

If you don't want to read a lot of boring swill, you definitely don't want to participate in a lawsuit.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#238

Post by stevage »

lapcat wrote: post #143
jacquesm wrote: post #82

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 think organising a strike online is that hard. Remember the protests against FOSTA etc? Or against Reddit management?

The main bit is getting people to care.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#239

Post by charcircuit »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #212
sundvor wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PC platform: Steam doesn't care if (case in point) Eagle Dynamics allows direct downloads from their website of DCS World - in fact they embrace it, by offering account linking APIs. So on PCs, unlike on iOS, users can buy their content as they choose. And it's not as if Microsoft forces everyone to use their (exceptionally crappy) store either.

Indeed there are many free-to-play games on Steam with micro-transactions that are not required to give Valve a cut.

They are required to for in game purchases, but they are likely too small for Valve to care else have a custom agreement with Valve.

Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

#240

Post by htrp »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #209
kemayo wrote: post #119

This is the same strategy that Apple pursued for dating apps in the Netherlands, after a court there forced them to allow third-party payments a year or two ago. Their argument is that the 15/30% is a general fee for use of their infrastructure (App Store, etc), and so they'll subtract the approximate cost of payment processing if you're handling it yourself but you'll still have to pay the rest of the fee to them. A…

It's the same thing here in Korea. I'm implementing a 3rd party payment processor for a client right now - same 27% fee. However, the revenue is "self reported". Allegedly, most companies lie.

You lie until you get big enough that it warrants an audit.
Post reply on HN