Live data from Hacker News

Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

wired.com

331–340 of 346 posts

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

#331
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, t…

> Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? They could do that, but they don't. I don't recall having to sign a rental agreement stating that I don't actually own the phone and I'm only allowed to purchase Apple-approved applications in order to get an iPhone. If Apple was forced make their customers go through that process then the downsides and anti-trust problems asso…

Consider that the phone is useless w/o its operating system, etc, and you did not purchase that software; you only bought a license to use it, according to some terms and conditions.

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

#332
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, t…

They did own the phone until they sold it to a customer. After the customer bought it Apple no longer owns the phone but the customer does.

I mean, you are talking as if the rules governing the use of property are a natural kind. As if there is one and only one set of terms and conditions which apply to any sale of anything at anytime.

The concept of "property" and the specific set of rights and obligations surrounding it are created by people, and can (and have been) rewritten all the time.

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

#333
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, t…

Apple does not have the legal right to rescind the “rental” and retrieve your phone. So it doesn’t, in fact, own it.

Fun fact, part of the terms and conditions for buying an iPhone is you grant Apple--or anybody they care to designate, an "irrevocable" license to enter your house and repossess the phone until the phone has been 100% payed for.

Apple can do this at any time, for any reason---you don't have to be late on your payments, etc.

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

#334
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is true, why does Android not set their pricing at 5-10% or less, get more developers and outcompete apple? Google would then pay apple less in search default fees to boot. Android has been losing market share to apple globally for nearly a decade, in particular amongst the richest, most valuable customers. Developers are very valuable to apple but the field isn’t obviously unbalanced. The apple App Store is…

> If this is true, why does Android not set their pricing at 5-10% or less, get more developers and outcompete apple? You have discovered duopolies. It's not like Google isn't being sued for anti-competitive smartphone behavior right now. Okay to be fair, that's a somewhat dismissive answer, it is slightly more complicated. Google uses Android more as an advertising platform than as a product on its own. Their goals…

If google expands its market share they don’t have to pay apple as much. The payments are based on safari usage. Google has enormous incentive to expand android share

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

#335
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are not sideloading apps, your attack surface is unchanged.

So it's impossible for that mechanism to be insecure? There is a 0% chance it could be exploited to load software onto my phone? There is a 0% border guards at a country won't make me install an app to come into the country? I can understand you valuing tradeoffs different from me but not acknowledging that there is any risk (when it's already shown to be a risk on android) just comes off as zealotry or bad faith

iphones got pwned at least 4 times in 2023 via iMessage. And yet I don't see you commenting that iMessage must be removed.

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

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

My original intent was just to explore the complexity of the situation.

People clearly want to cut them out of the process, but this requires justification just as much as Apple's current stance. The question is: why should they be forced to do what you want, vs. you being forced to comply with what they want?

I'm sympathetic to issues related to their dominant market position and recognize that there are multiple ways to run a platform. I'm also not saying that I prefer Apple's policies. But ultimately the products that Apple produces are a result of the way they run their business, and at issue is whether or not they should be allowed to execute on their business model, and if not, the basis for why they shouldn't.

> I'm talking about an alternative to having to follow Apple's arbitrary rules

While I certainly understand why people don't like these rules, they are not arbitrary. There is every indication that the rules are carefully calculated to benefit Apple, and in many cases, their customers. After spending some time in the Android ecosystem, I personally prefer the high bar required for apps to get published. I prefer the unified subscription experience mediated by Apple that allows me to see and manage what I'm paying for in one place. As a developer, I also understand why other developers find these rules frustrating. The bubble we're in is uniquely positioned to feel both sides of the issue.

eBay and Amazon also impose rules on sales, and they take large cuts of seller profits in exchange for the privilege of selling in their marketplaces. The same goes for your local shopping mall, and even some towns/municipalities etc. Your local shopping mall has rules and regulations about the kinds of stores that can sell their goods and services, and charges money for the privilege of selling what they do allow. You might dislike a limitation that prevents you from opening , but that doesn't make the rule arbitrary.

> 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.

This could be said of almost every market and community in existence. And the trouble is that this is both a bug and a feature, depending on your perspective. The distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" currently seems to be based on personal preference, the nature of an app, or the stage of a company.

Bringing this full circle, my early point was that what seems completely reasonable for a developer launching a brand new app targeting Apple's highly lucrative customer base may not seem reasonable at all when bigger players with existing customers (like Netflix, Spotify, etc) get involved. And it's the simultaneous reasonableness/unreasonableness that makes this a far more complicated issue than many people are willing to acknowledge.

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

#337
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users obviously would like to pay less. But you imply that lower commissions somehow trickle down to users. I happily admit that I pocketed the 15% discount I got once the Small Business Program launched and so did all of my peers. I can’t think of a single example where a developer in the SBP lowered their prices. As such, I don’t see what users have to do with it. Not that it’d matter, the topic is developers and h…

Your reply goes completely OT. We are talking about app store, not specifically what netflix does or doesn't do.

The topic at hand is developers, more specifically developer sentiment towards Apple and the App Store.

That is the topic of the article (RTFA) and it’s the topic of the GP you replied to originally.

You had no qualms going OT talking about what users would or wouldn’t like, but now when I try to stay on topic and talk about developers, of which Netflix is one, you want to pull the OT card?

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

#338
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely about developers.

> "these warnings would dissuade 50 percent of users from proceeding with their purchase." How is user activity/behavior about developers?

The headline is literally "developers revolt", and the fact that half of users would be scared of a warning would absolutely matter to developers who don't want to scare away half of their users.

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

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are apple's customers they have given you access to. Insane take imo. I'm baffled how people can write this out with a straight face. Just one counter example to the relationship you described: In Europe, if my app does not deliver as advertised, it is the customer that can sue me. Directly. They don't sue Apple because my app is in their app store, they obviously sue me, because I am the service provider. >…

>I'm baffled how people can write this out with a straight face. I would 100% buy an iPhone with no appstore, it would still be better as a smartphone than my Samsung with F-Droid and Google Play Store.

Why do you have a Samsung then ?

You contrarians are so fucking idiotic it's insane.

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

#340
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> copying an app then banning that developer's app off the Appstore is better than copying an app's features while allowing it to be sold? I said no such thing. I said, by implication, that losing a year's revenue, but still having a functioning company, is better than being forced into bankruptcy. Also, that in no way means that causing a third party app developer to lose a year's revenue is not a bad thing to do. O…

Who was force into bankruptcy? You're just making stuff up at this point for a strawman argument. Apple's walled garden can more easily force you into bankruptcy though since you have no alternative way to distribute iOS apps to customers, therefore your revenue stream can be cut off without warning. Just because that one dev in that example didn't go bankrupt, doesn't prove your argument. Meanwhile, Microsoft can't…

This guy is unreal. Apple "fan users" in general are something else, it's like their logic (or lack thereof) got stuck at the elementary level or something.

To be clear I have been an Apple customer since way before the iPhone, but I really feel bad about the new breed of Apple fanatics. To be honest, I have the feeling that some cognitive limitation is part of the reason for being such a loyal customer.

Post reply on HN