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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by rustcleaner »

Mutjake wrote: post #704

Probably an unpopular opinion, but as an Apple user it is okay for me to pay 30% extra (which I often do instead of using Android and getting certain apps for free), so I avoid having to sideload Epic/Facebook/whatnot stuff from their own mandatory app store + having the hassle of figuring out if there's a subscription model and how difficult it is to terminate, how to handle refunds, what darkpattern analytics are i…

This is such a common talking point, the "hassle of side-loading app stores and the insecurity of trusting them (for permissions enforcement)," that I wonder if some PR firm out there was hired and this talking point is showing up everywhere so people subconsciously think it's consensus and start parroting it themselves (why I'm now seeing it and responding)! The application security model is at the OS level and not the app store level (which is really just a dressed up branded package manager, and has been done forever in GNU-land).

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

#902

Post by bob1029 »

pritambaral wrote: post #898
squigglydonut wrote: post #842

I designed and built my PWA. You just have to define a manifest and set an empty service worker. Boom now your mobile responsive app is a PWA. PWA can look exactly like native app if you are careful with the design. There are navigation patterns that users expect. Make sure to dial in the information hierarchy and design modals correctly. Use familiar iconography and use type that works at small point sizes. This is…

Is it still true that iOS PWAs cannot be opened with a link (except from a notification pushed to the app).

In a B2B setting, this whole class of issues can be resolved with basic endpoint management. For some of our customers, we use InTune to push our PWAs as homescreen icons to enrolled iOS devices. Other customers dont even care about the icon being done automagically. Their users will either open safari directly (gasp) or will setup the icon however they prefer.

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

#903

Post by sholladay »

sangnoir wrote: post #896
judge2020 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add, I'm not sure what legal basis there is for "you're charging too much". My only guess is filing against Apple and Google jointly for being a duopoly, but Epic has made it extremely hard to do something like this because of their existing jury trial against Google which gives a lot of concessions to third-party app stores in terms of functionality.

> To add, I'm not sure what legal basis there is for "you're charging too much" Anti-price-gauging laws have already been ruled as constitutional, so there is case law for "You're charging too much"

But overpriced goods and services are fairly common and accepted in the marketplace. Gucci handbags, houses, TurboTax, any product or service at a car dealership…

The 30% App Store tax does suck but I’ve never understood why it’s singled out. My best guess is that people hate platforms because it’s a 3-way transaction, which makes everything harder, including price negotiation. And also the service isn’t particularly unique, unlike the house, or a status symbol, unlike the Gucci handbag.

Ironically, if Apple made App Store publication more expensive but invite-only, like a high end Bugatti sports car, I don’t think it would’ve ended up in court.

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

#904

Post by samtheprogram »

WWLink wrote: post #341
_gabe_ wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). I keep seeing this line of thinking in the comments (some may say these comments are conforming to a specific line of thought). When is the last time you used a modern android (Galaxy, Pixel, etc)? And really used it, not just tried to use…

The tribal war thing over android vs iOS makes me laugh. It really is ridiculous. I have an iPhone XS and a Galaxy Fold 4, and have bounced around between android phone and iPhones over the years. I won't deny that there are some things Apple does better, but it's far from a night-and-day difference. The most shocking thing to me was playing around with a budget phone once, it was a like $150 motorola I bought for a…

GP here. If you’re talking about the Moto G Play, it gets pretty slow after a few days of usage in my testing. I used it for 6 months last year. There’s several apps for Android that I would avoid using when possible because they were unbearable. A voice call with some video stream in Discord is probably the worst example.

It’s a far better option to buy a refurbished iPhone 8 for the same price, or get an Android phone at a higher price point.

It may be old now, but compared to the Moto G Play it’s probably similarly spec’d (minus RAM, which you need less of on iOS).

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

#905

Post by samtheprogram »

_gabe_ wrote: post #263
samtheprogram wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t daily driven Android since at least the iPhone 3GS, according to your comment. There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). You’re also not the customer in this situation — you’re talking not as a developer but as an end-user without any mention of a subscription service th…

> There’s a reason they’re able to charge 30%, have a dominant market position in the US, and people continue to release apps for iOS (and prioritize launching there over Android). I keep seeing this line of thinking in the comments (some may say these comments are conforming to a specific line of thought). When is the last time you used a modern android (Galaxy, Pixel, etc)? And really used it, not just tried to use…

I used a Galaxy S8 for 3 years, I did like it, but switching back to a budget iPhone was marginally better for a fraction of the price.

I daily drove some budget phones last year on Android, which was not an enjoyable experience.

My original comment was more about why the other commenter got downvoted (it was irrelevant pile-on), not trying to take a strong stance here, but I can see how it came across now. I obviously have my opinions, though (a bit more so now after the budget phone experiments of 2023…)

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

#906

Post by tristan957 »

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?

Why do people still think that OJ is a murderer?

Courts get rulings wrong all the time. How many times has someone on death row been exonerated for a crime?

The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. Going further, it is the only form of app distribution to greater than 50% of the US market. Vertical integration is a very valid argument to make here, same as it was with Standard Oil, and other companies of the early 20th century.

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

#907

Post by mmcnl »

Mikho wrote: post #714

The real problem with the Apple Tax — it ruins value-chain and makes it uneconomical For every value created a customer receives there is value captured by a company paid by this customer. Let's say a company creates a service valued as 1X by the customer and the customer pays 1X for that. This balance guarantees accessibility and interest among many customers. Apple tax demands for a customer to pay 1.43X for the sa…

It depends on what you consider "value". Apple would argue the distribution through the App Store is part of the value chain. I think the real issue here is that Apple demands 30% always. 30% might be the "distribution value" for small indie devs, but it probably decreases once the developer is big enough and their products are well known (Epic/Fortnite, Spotify). Then it becomes just a tax that indeed skews the price-elasticity curve.

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

#908

Post by eaglelamp »

SllX wrote: post #867
eaglelamp wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not incredible it is just a different view point. In your second paragraph you take a utilitarian point of view in which case the size of an organization is irrelevant so long as it produces a net gain for society. An alternative view values human freedom and autonomy. From this perspective the size of an organization is relevant - a large enough organization can impose its will on individuals who don't wish to…

> An alternative view values human freedom and autonomy. That is some choice rhetoric with a particular bias, but not a distinct point of view from people arguing for freedom and autonomy for Apple’s business practices. The corporation is a legal fiction, but it’s still human owned, operated, and staffed, and reflects the millions (billions?) of choices that get made by individuals working together to accomplish what…

I didn't mean it as rhetoric, it's a simplified statement of a viewpoint.

I think rhetorically "..who choose to do business with them" is doing a lot more work than anything I wrote. Once an organization reaches a certain size individuals start losing meaningful choice in how they interact with it. You can say that the "gestalt" will of the organization is more important, but you can't make other people concede that their point of view is merely a rhetorical stance.

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

#909

Post by AmericanChopper »

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…

> Let's be clear, you're talking about a strike.

You're certainly not talking about a strike. A strike is when employees refuse to work. What you're suggesting is that the app developers form a _cartel_, and perform a boycott.

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

#910

Post by mmcnl »

GeekyBear wrote: post #114

At this point, it's worth remembering that one of the points on which Epic lost was Apple's right to take a cut of transactions. I found this discussion of the Apple v. Epic ruling to be informative: > 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 co…

Then Epic might've won the battle but lost the war. I don't think this is the end.
Post reply on HN