Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#291

Post by Ajedi32 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 4:54 AM UTC

haswell wrote: post #275

Ajedi32 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not just wielding the value of their marketplace though. If that was all it was, then Netflix could threaten to distribute their application to Apple customers through a different marketplace as part of their negotiations. But users aren't allowed to install applications without going through Apple's marketplace. Apple does, in some limited sense, "own" those customers. That's the issue. The DMA tried to fix…

I'm trying to understand your point. Netflix already distributes its app via the App Store and pays no fees for users who subscribe directly with Netflix. I was a Netflix customer before I was an Apple customer, and have never touched Netflix billing from my Apple device. Netflix pays no money to Apple for my subscription. They pay money for customers who originate from the Apple in-app sales funnel. Netflix could ch…

> I think we might be arguing orthogonal points.

Correct. You seem entirely concerned with the specifics of what rules Apple chooses to enforce and whether those rules allow developers alternatives to paying 30% of their revenue to Apple.

But I'm not talking about an alternative to paying the fee, I'm talking about an alternative to having to follow Apple's arbitrary rules period. What if I decide I don't like the terms Apple is offering, and that I just want to sell a piece of software directly to an iOS user and cut Apple completely out of the process? Right now, I can't; Apple will simply refuse to sign the application and iOS devices will refuse to allow my customers to install it on their devices, and there's no alternative to that. I either comply with all of Apple's demands (however reasonable or unreasonable they might be), or I can't sell working software to my customers.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#292

Post by gls2ro » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 5:03 AM UTC

MilaM wrote: post #152

pflats wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose an author uploads their book to ExamplePrint Inc, a one stop shop that prints made-to-order books for customers. The reader goes to ExamplePrint and buys the book. ExamplePrint prints a softcover copy of the book on the spot and ships it out to the reader. The user pays ExamplePrint, who pays the author some fraction of the user's money. The reader is a customer of ExamplePrint and reading the author's book.…

Nice analogy. The problem is, that ExamplePrint is the only shop the author can use to reach his customers. There is also PrintExample (Android), but it's customer base has zero overlap with ExamplePrint. Therefore the author has no choice but to use ExamplePrint's service.

Your example is actually showing why it is the customer of ExamplePrint that choose to read that book and not the customer of that book that choose to print it at ExamplePrint.

Because if it is the customer of the book that wants to print it they are always welcome to go to PrintExample. But the situation is actually reverse: the customer entered ExamplePrint because they choose ExamplePrint first and then saw the book there. They might not read that book if they would not have been a customer of ExamplePrint => do they are in fact a customer of ExamplePrint that choose to read something they found there.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#293

Post by Ajedi32 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 5:19 AM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #260

Ajedi32 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is the fundamental issue at play here. I don't care what fees or rules Apple puts in place for developer access to its app store. I care that I'm digitally restricted from running anything other than software approved by Apple on my device. If that problem was solved and Apple had to compete with other app stores on a level playing field, that would naturally resolve any issues with their rules or fee stru…

This is a problem, agreed, but I’m not sure if it’s the problem with iOS devices. I doubt that being able to install Linux on their iPhones would address many of the complaints against Apple: Many people do like using iOS, after all, just not Apple’s tight control over (sandboxes!) application-layer software running on it. For example, I use a Mac, and I’d be furious if Apple were to prevent sideloading of unsigned b…

Correct, I'm not just talking about alternative OSs. I specifically had application-layer software in mind when I wrote that comment. iOS prevents users from installing applications or app stores not approved (digitally signed) by Apple. Solve that problem, and Apple wouldn't have any leverage to force application developers to pay per-install in the first place.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#294

Post by gretch » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 6:28 AM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #278

gretch wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody would be able to do anything about it Just don’t use an iPhone. And Amazon - just don’t put an app on the iOS store. I mean it really is that simple. If customers actually cared about any of this stuff they would just switch. If there was enough demand another competitor would emerge (windows phone, black berry, foss)

If "just don't buy at the monopoly" would work, we wouldn't need antitrust regulation.

So your thesis is that it doesn't work.

We are all enslaved to keep buying iPhones and have no free choice?

Or is it that even if no one bought an iPhone, Apple as a company would be able to keep it's market position?

This is why Apple keeps winning in the court cases, because the argument as you just presented it lacks any kind of rigor.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#295

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 6:32 AM UTC

Nevermark wrote: post #264

Assuming the backlash carries through further EU responses (which regardless of opinions on what it should do, will need to do if it wants to remain credible on this issue): 1. Apple knows this. It knows it will be asked to do more. 2. In the short term, they will drag their feet to maintain benefits of the status quo as long as possible. 3. But more importantly longer term, they expect the final result to be more in…

Government is Apple's adversary. Is that what this is suggesting.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#296

Post by yungporko » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 8:37 AM UTC

awesomeMilou wrote: post #172

sib wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Windows" didn't sell them a computer. Microsoft sold an OS to - for example - Dell, who then sold a computer to the user. So they are Dell's customers. And Dell, for sure, earned a lot of money selling placement on the Home Screen (or pre-installation) to 3P app developers. (Of course, there are also computers such as the Microsoft Surface, but these represent a tiny fraction of the universe of Windows computers eve…

> If 3P app developers want to access Apple's customers on a platform developed by Apple, then they should expect to play by Apple's rules... That whole argument is based on the implicit assumption that Apple's products would still be as attractive to consumers as they are right now, even if they didn't allow 3rd party developers access to their platform. Which is a completely insane take, like literally pathological…

i'm aware that i'm a very small minority here, but i would actually love that. it'd be the closest thing i can get to a "dumbphone" that still allows me to track health/fitness stuff with my apple watch. i'd actually pay extra for it.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#297

Post by withinboredom » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 9:42 AM UTC

haswell wrote: post #288

withinboredom wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. There are zero laws that prevent me from taking it apart, running it over, tossing it off a bridge (well, maybe that last one because littering is usually illegal). There’s not even any laws preventing me from flashing the device with whatever code I want. If you want to complain that a phone nee…

> An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple the same way a PlayStation 5 doesn’t depend on Sony. Most people buy the iPhone not just for the electronic components but for the entire ecosystem of apps and experiences, which are built on a foundation of Apple core APIs. Even when Sony did support running L…

> An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple the same way a PlayStation 5 doesn’t depend on Sony.

Your presumption here is that Sony is in the right. Who says they are? The original PS3 allowed installing Linux and they only removed it due to the maintenance burden -- almost nobody was using it except the US government.

Even still, you can upload your own OS to a PS5. There's no magic hardware stopping you. You can even replace parts ... or even just rip it out and make a handheld device like one guy did on youtube.

You can't do that with a modern iPhone. It will brick itself if you replace the screen.

> If these were not specialized, we should see similar devices on the market to satisfy all manner of customers similar to what we see with general purpose hardware

So, you're saying that Samsung doesn't sell cellphones? The hardware is so specialized that Apple is the only one who can make a cellphone? I find that extremely hard to believe that Apple hardware doesn't use electronic circuits, CPU's, and other modern technology. Are you asserting that iPhone's run on magic?

> I’m genuinely curious: why do you want an iPhone then?

I moved out of my home country and my parents have an iPhone. We literally own one just to use FaceTime with them because they don't understand whatsapp and they want to talk to my son.

Beyond that, I make apps, and I need a physical device to test things on.

> But I also understand why it’s not, and what that lack of flexibility provides me.

I don't understand why there is a lack of flexibility. I have a few custom tools I've built, and having to reinstall them every week makes it utterly pointless to use an iPhone. How is that a reasonable lack of flexibility?

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#298

Post by nprateem » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 9:57 AM UTC

beacon294 wrote: post #217

nprateem wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's divorced from reality. In no world will volunteers maintain parity with a trillion dollar hardware and software company covered by a multitude of patents.

Is this a joke? I was obviously calling back both to PC compatibles and UNIX compatibles. Both open systems have completely dominated the closed systems. It is obvious that Apple is doing everything to prevent this.

Yeah and look at the raging success of Linux on the desktop.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#299

Post by Nevermark » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 10:10 AM UTC

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #295

Nevermark wrote: post #264

Assuming the backlash carries through further EU responses (which regardless of opinions on what it should do, will need to do if it wants to remain credible on this issue): 1. Apple knows this. It knows it will be asked to do more. 2. In the short term, they will drag their feet to maintain benefits of the status quo as long as possible. 3. But more importantly longer term, they expect the final result to be more in…

Government is Apple's adversary. Is that what this is suggesting.

Yes, any governmental group taking action against Apple, especially systemic action, could be viewed as their "enemy", if you don't take the word too seriously.

"Opposition" might be a better word.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#300

Post by MilaM » Tue, Feb 13, 2024, 10:25 AM UTC

gls2ro wrote: post #292

MilaM wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice analogy. The problem is, that ExamplePrint is the only shop the author can use to reach his customers. There is also PrintExample (Android), but it's customer base has zero overlap with ExamplePrint. Therefore the author has no choice but to use ExamplePrint's service.

Your example is actually showing why it is the customer of ExamplePrint that choose to read that book and not the customer of that book that choose to print it at ExamplePrint. Because if it is the customer of the book that wants to print it they are always welcome to go to PrintExample. But the situation is actually reverse: the customer entered ExamplePrint because they choose ExamplePrint first and then saw the bo…

I don't agree. Without the authors, the printer has no business. No one is going to want to be customer of ExamplePrint to buy books with empty pages. The problem is, that because of size and technological obstacles, ExamplePrint can dictate the conditions for the authors. The relationship is very asymetrical. The only way out is to have laws that make this limited marketplace fair for all three sides. Hence the EUs attempt at regulating the so called getekeepers.