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

Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 411 posts

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#71

Post by Liftyee »

raincole wrote: post #22
crims0n wrote: post #11

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .

The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that. Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller f…

People are understandably much more amenable to Valve because the company as a whole behaves in a much more cooperative and pro-consumer way... e.g. Steam deck repair options, furthering Linux gaming, and Gaben's general philosophy.

Cult-like or not, I find it reasonable to support companies that do things which you agree with. Valve's non-adversarial approach to business (as opposed to many rent-seeking corps these days) probably helps that perception.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#72

Post by gpm »

cedws wrote: post #68
gpm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equivalent in the way of having the numerous features small and large that Apple has patents on. Whether that's being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes they have a patent on that, or at least did, and successfully defended it in court. Not sure what's happened in the meantime), or whatever random patents Apple has on making blood oxygen sensor technology just that little bit better. If Apple believes their portfo…

It sounds like your problem is with the patent system then. The point of patents is to grant exclusive rights to a technology in exchange for sharing information.

I'm not taking any issue with patents existing here. I'm taking issue with anti-competitive behavior that Apple is executing on top of the patent system. If Apple merely wanted to use their monopoly on features of devices to sell devices with those features I would have no issue. My issue is only when they leverage that monopoly to get a monopoly on the distribution of software to those devices and then leverages their monopoly on the distribution of software to those devices to extract fees for doing so.

Edit: I don't, for instance, have issues with how they use patents with macbooks. There they don't abuse their monopoly on certain hardware features to get and extract money from a secondary monopoly on software.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#73

Post by cedws »

kadoban wrote: post #66
cedws wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market. If you don’t like the charging options of an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone. If you don’t like the OS of a Pixel, don’t buy a Pixel. If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.

> If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants. And if new entrants can't enter the market because the existing monopolies make it impractical, then what?

This is the actual problem to be solved. The bureaucracy of forcing the hand of tech companies every time consumers scream loud enough is a shitty solution.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#74

Post by rescbr »

jen729w wrote: post #38
crims0n wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in this scenario would Epic then need to develop and maintain their own toolchain and SDK for their app store? The development tools and education are also worth something, Epic shouldn’t get that for free.

Dystopian story plot: Apple completely opens up the iOS platform. Do whatever you like. Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own.

That would be the best outcome!

We would be back to the real days of computing.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#75

Post by gt0 »

crims0n wrote: post #11

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .

For me it's not about the percentage, it's that it is a monopoly. If I make an iPad app, my only route to market is Apple.

That is before I get into my personal objection to having to ask permission to put software on a computer I bought. I own an iPad but I can't just install anything I want on it, Apple needs to approve the software first. For me that's just anti-creative and anti-everying-I-love-about-computers.

All I really want as a software developer is to be able to write software and have people use it if they choose to. I don't want Apple or any other company inserted as a middle-man.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#76

Post by ASalazarMX »

glitchc wrote: post #55
crims0n wrote: post #11

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .

10%. A finder's fee, like everything else irl. It should be regulated as such for all platforms.

Wholeheartedly agree. 30% fee feels like medicare in USA, an excessive amount because it's as high as developers will pay without giving up and leaving.

The Apple App Store sold more than one trillion USD in 2024, how much of their 30% cut (300+ billion) covers operational costs? ¿10%?

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#77

Post by giobox »

JimDabell wrote: post #27
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, but when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users, it definitely isn't.

> when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users That doesn’t describe Apple’s situation though. Most businesses don’t distribute software at all; those that do mostly don’t need to distribute native iOS apps; those that do mostly don’t need to pay App Store fees; those that do mostly have to pay 15%. It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that ne…

> those that do mostly have to pay 15%

This case only concerns Apple's App Store fees before 2020; it was a blanket 30% charge for paid apps until they introduced those changes following the whole Epic Games legal saga etc.

Apple are not paying a penalty for anything after 2020 when the new rules allowing those with lower turnover to pay 15% came into effect etc.

> It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%

During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#78

Post by fhennig »

cedws wrote: post #60
bitpush wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you plug in a non-Apple USB cable to charge your iPhone, or use a third-party phone case, or use Anker power bank .. do you wish you had none of these choices, but only use whatever Apple branded cables, and phonecase and power banks existed? If you want to buy Apple cables because you think it is better, sure - that's great. But preventing ugreen cables from working makes no sense. You shouldnt say 'buy a diffe…

Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market. If you don’t like the charging options of an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone. If you don’t like the OS of a Pixel, don’t buy a Pixel. If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.

I don't like any of the options but still need a phone, now what?

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#79

Post by timpieces »

cedws wrote: post #60
bitpush wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you plug in a non-Apple USB cable to charge your iPhone, or use a third-party phone case, or use Anker power bank .. do you wish you had none of these choices, but only use whatever Apple branded cables, and phonecase and power banks existed? If you want to buy Apple cables because you think it is better, sure - that's great. But preventing ugreen cables from working makes no sense. You shouldnt say 'buy a diffe…

Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market. If you don’t like the charging options of an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone. If you don’t like the OS of a Pixel, don’t buy a Pixel. If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.

This is true of an idealized perfect free market with perfectly rational consumers, but not so much in the real world. The simple fact that profits on phones haven't been competed to zero is enough to show it's not a perfect free market. I don't think the average consumer spends much time considering the long-term health of the app ecosystem when they purchase a phone. Maybe the wisdom of the crowds is correct here and it's truly not important or beneficial, but to me it seems more likely that it's outside the bounded rationality of most consumers. Markets have blind-spots and they tend to be short sighted.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#80

Post by xmprt »

fhennig wrote: post #78
cedws wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market. If you don’t like the charging options of an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone. If you don’t like the OS of a Pixel, don’t buy a Pixel. If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.

I don't like any of the options but still need a phone, now what?

That's pretty unfortunately but if you articulate some of your issues with the options, I'm sure I can find an Android option for you that works. Despite Google's attempts, Android is still quite open and many phones allow you to do whatever you want with them.

Or if you only want to use iPhones then it seems like the downsides of the locked down app store aren't worth switching in which case it seems like you've already made your choice.

Post reply on HN