US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission • Hacker News Board

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

#481

Post by riscy » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:39 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #463

riscy wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to see an HN hate thread about the trillion dollar company Google and its Play Store, with the same fees, stealing 30% from an even broader part of society.

While most people do install apps through the Play Store, Google doesn't lock down their platform to make it the only option. I have one alternative store (F-Droid) installed, and also have a couple apps side-loaded. Google's 30% isn't the only option on Android. Apple's 30% is the only option on iOS. Regardless, Google gets plenty of flak here for a variety of things, including how they run the Play Store.

I really don’t think it’s about side-loading, principles of freedom, the spirit of hacking, etc. HN’s full of indie app developers trying to make money. They know iOS users more often pay for things so it’s their target audience.

I doubt existence of F-Droid is even a drop in the bucket of fee savings for those developers on Android. Otherwise, Google would do something about it to get their cut.

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

#482

Post by eptcyka » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:40 AM UTC

todd3834 wrote: post #479

andersa wrote: post #373

It's incredible that there are actually people in this thread arguing in favor of Apple. You don't need to defend the trillion dollar company. They are not your friend, they do not care about you, your work or your life. All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes than make a few people who already have everything even richer.

They probably do care a lot about developers staying on their platform. The 30% is only from companies making more than $1 million. Otherwise you can qualify for 15% small business program. I don’t need them to be my friend or to care about me but as a share holder I want them to succeed. So far their R&D has proven valuable to me as both a consumer and share holder. I don’t care if a few people who already have ever…

Do they care though? As a developer, I either play by the rules and get access to their massive, lucrative market or I just don't. Its not like the investment developers and Dev companies make into their ecosystem can be just moved elsewhere - its all a sunken cost.

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

#483

Post by 015a » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:41 AM UTC

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #317

choppaface wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.

Even if you're side-loading, you're still using Apple IP. Every single framework and the OS itself up to the Mach OSS Kernel is Apple IP. It would be entirely unfeasible to run anything on an iPhone without some Apple IP. You'd be looking at an Asahi Linux for iPhone.

How have they leveraged this argument against the idea that the user who purchased the device has some level of right to use the IP on the phone they purchase? Phrase this question another way: if I were to write and sell some application for the iPhone through my personal website, which requires users phones to be jailbroken, would my application and business be in violation of, specifically, US intellectual property law? Assuming I perfectly side-step other more obvious illegalities like trademark law.

Here's another caveat: assume the bundle I distribute is dynamically linked into the underlying operating system, such that I'm definitely distributing nothing except my own code that I wrote. Or, similarly: I ship nothing but my own code, plus a script I wrote the purchaser has to run to statically link the package with iOS libraries present on their Mac.

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

#484

Post by puszczyk » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:41 AM UTC

andersa wrote: post #373

It's incredible that there are actually people in this thread arguing in favor of Apple. You don't need to defend the trillion dollar company. They are not your friend, they do not care about you, your work or your life. All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes than make a few people who already have everything even richer.

I don’t care about trillion dollar company. I care about my experience. App Store purchases and subscriptions are a good experience for a user. I’ve never had problems canceling subscriptions, or getting refunds.

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

#485

Post by kelnos » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:42 AM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #444

choppaface wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.

> Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. Not under US law according to the very court case being discussed. Why are people still making this claim when the judge literally concluded otherwise and then a panel of appeals court judges confirmed her ruling?

Because it's not unreasonable to disagree with the law. The judges may be applying it correctly, and correctly following the process for determining that the market is all mobile apps, and not just iOS mobile apps, but it's reasonable for people to disagree with that on first principles.

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

#486

Post by newaccount74 » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:43 AM UTC

stefandesu wrote: post #416

malshe wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a few vendors who sell on Amazon. With advertising, they end up paying close to 60% of the selling price to Amazon.

How can Amazon pricing be so competitive if the cut is so large for third-party vendors?

a) Amazon pricing in general isn't competitive. I regularly use geizhals.at, a price comparison website, and Amazon rarely is the cheapest option.

b) I don't know if parent poster was talking about FBA (fulfillment by amazon) sales or not. If they are, then Amazons cut includes shipping and storage costs, which for low value items are often more than the stuff costs itself.

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

#487

Post by todd3834 » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:45 AM UTC

eptcyka wrote: post #482

todd3834 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably do care a lot about developers staying on their platform. The 30% is only from companies making more than $1 million. Otherwise you can qualify for 15% small business program. I don’t need them to be my friend or to care about me but as a share holder I want them to succeed. So far their R&D has proven valuable to me as both a consumer and share holder. I don’t care if a few people who already have ever…

Do they care though? As a developer, I either play by the rules and get access to their massive, lucrative market or I just don't. Its not like the investment developers and Dev companies make into their ecosystem can be just moved elsewhere - its all a sunken cost.

Do you really think they wouldn’t care if developers left their platform? They care because it’s beneficial to them. I don’t expect anything else from any corporation including the ones who’ve employed me.

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

#488

Post by kelnos » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:45 AM UTC

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #317

choppaface wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.

Even if you're side-loading, you're still using Apple IP. Every single framework and the OS itself up to the Mach OSS Kernel is Apple IP. It would be entirely unfeasible to run anything on an iPhone without some Apple IP. You'd be looking at an Asahi Linux for iPhone.

SCOTUS has ruled[0] that use (including implementation) of APIs is fair use, and does not constitute copyright infringement if the author of those APIs wishes to place restrictions on them.

A developer writing an app for iOS can use the APIs provided by Apple without agreeing to license them.

(Granted, you can't get your app into the App Store and onto iPhones/iPads without agreeing to whatever Apple wants you to agree to. Which... is part of the problem.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

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

#489

Post by todd3834 » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:48 AM UTC

It’s very interesting to read through the threads. I’m seeing two sides of the argument but clearly the majority here are not happy about what Apple is doing or anyone who tries to stick up for it. I hope people continue to share their perspective. Even if it is not popular to the HN crowd because I appreciate a balanced discussion.

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

#490

Post by kelnos » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 7:49 AM UTC

sircastor wrote: post #293

choppaface wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.

Some people think of the App Store as a bazaar that Apple runs on its property, and it’s a 15-30% charge to setup a tent and sell your wares. Others think of it as Apple’s general store where they carry your app as a product, and you pay 15-30% for a place on the shelf. The concept that Kroger (for instance) has a monopoly of customers in its own store is ridiculous. There are other stores, and other bazaars. What an…

That analogy doesn't work, unless Kroger is the only grocery store that's permitted to exist.

There are no other stores, or other bazaars. If you want to sell an iOS app, your only option is the Apple App Store.

Apparently the courts don't believe this is a monopoly, presumably because you can also choose to toss your iPhone and buy an Android phone instead. I disagree with that reasoning; to me that's like if Whole Foods also exists in addition to Kroger, but if you want to switch to Whole Foods, you have to get an expensive operation to swap out your stomach, because the groceries at Whole Foods don't work with the stomach that works with the groceries at Kroger.