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

Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 147 posts

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#101

Post by Leherenn »

0xy wrote: post #9

If you could choose between a fee decrease to 15% or the ability to sideload apps bypassing the store, which is more important? To me, the only reason I avoid iOS is specifically because I cannot install my own apps without using the store.

I think capping fees would make it even worse, it would entrench the practice as acceptable.

Allow sideloading and the price should move towards the equilibrium price. Which very well might be 30%, since Google manages this despite allowing sideloading.

The tricky question I would say is the accessibility of the alternative stores. First there is the default/non-default install thing, we've seen how it worked out for Microsoft. Then there are all the warnings/toggles about unsafe external apps. This is much more difficult, since it's quite useful for security, but at the same time it makes it much harder for alternative stores/apps.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#102

Post by sjwright »

Hamuko wrote: post #99
sjwright wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true in practice, but it's not something you can create laws around. The US Government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which consumer electronics are integral to (Western) life. Particularly given that the vast majority of App Store profits are going to the makers of games. If there are going to be mandated limits, they should apply to all companies which build hardware and charge platform access…

> That may be true in practice, but it's not something you can create laws around. The US Government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which consumer electronics are integral to (Western) life. Why not?

Because they're not good at it and are guaranteed to screw it up somehow and especially at the margins.

Do these new rules include the Android Play Store? Does it include the Apple TV app store? Does it include the Play Store when purchased on a television running Android? Imagine if Mattel creates a new ultra-low cost video games console; should these rules apply to them? What if their console happens to run Android? What if their games console runs Android and the Play Store? What if apps bought on their game store can also run on a phone?

Ultimately it ends up just warping the market and adding yet more complexity into business—and complexity benefits powerful established players over new entrants.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#104

Post by mirchibajji »

sjwright wrote: post #69
matheusmoreira wrote: post #5

Apple wants to own iPhone consumers so that anyone who wants access to that demographic must pay the toll and follow their rules. It's far too much power for one corporation. Nice to see authorities are starting to take the matter seriously.

That's fine, but how are you going to construct legislation that specifically targets Apple's walled garden without breaching the Fourteenth Amendment?

Genuinely curious. I was under the impression that Constitution applies to people, and the govt. I'd appreciate if you point to any references for Constitution being applied to corporations.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#105

Post by Hamuko »

sjwright wrote: post #102
Hamuko wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That may be true in practice, but it's not something you can create laws around. The US Government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which consumer electronics are integral to (Western) life. Why not?

Because they're not good at it and are guaranteed to screw it up somehow and especially at the margins. Do these new rules include the Android Play Store? Does it include the Apple TV app store? Does it include the Play Store when purchased on a television running Android? Imagine if Mattel creates a new ultra-low cost video games console; should these rules apply to them? What if their console happens to run Android…

>Because they're not good at it and are guaranteed to screw it up somehow and especially at the margins.

Is this a proven or unproven assumption?

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#106

Post by sjwright »

Hamuko wrote: post #100
sjwright wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your logic is that if you're a nice platform monopolist, you can charge arbitrary platform access fees. But if you're a bunch of meanies, different laws shall apply to you. I'm sorry, I was under the misapprehension that you were making a serious point.

If you are not going to argue in good faith, please don't respond.

Here's that good faith you asked for:

> you're not charging arbitrary, excessive platform access fees

What's your legally enforceable definition of arbitrary? What's your legally enforceable definition of excessive? How do they apply to Apple and not to (for example) the Steam store?

> Sony for example seems to have a pretty positive relationship

Emphasis on "seems". These relationships involve very aggressive NDAs which would have a chilling effect on developers speaking out. Not to mention most developers will work for very large companies who would frown upon freelancing their opinions about a corporate relationship that is responsible for 50% or 100% of the developer's revenues.

Compare that to the App Store, where a million rando developers have paid their $99 and are complaining because Apple won't publish their malware or torch app.

> There's also various accounts of Sony providing support for its developers

There are (relatively speaking) an extremely tiny number of game developers on these platforms, and a lot of potential upside in landing exclusives, so you can expect such largesse and personal treatment from Sony and Microsoft.

> including launching a $10 million fund

For the video games industry, $10 million is crumbs. No, it's fractions of crumbs. No, it's atoms. I haven't looked into this PR exercise aka "fund" beyond the link you offered, but how much do you want to bet that access to that fund requires a period of console exclusivity in return?

> I'd imagine we'd hear a lot more negative stories

Again, the number of console publishing licenses is relatively tiny.

> But it also works out in game developers' favor.

Does it? Or does it just lock out new entrants in the hardware space? If Sony and Microsoft were unable to sell consoles at a loss, perhaps new market entrants would be able to create new console platforms of similar quality, and compete for developers by offering better financial terms.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#107

Post by sjwright »

Hamuko wrote: post #105
sjwright wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're not good at it and are guaranteed to screw it up somehow and especially at the margins. Do these new rules include the Android Play Store? Does it include the Apple TV app store? Does it include the Play Store when purchased on a television running Android? Imagine if Mattel creates a new ultra-low cost video games console; should these rules apply to them? What if their console happens to run Android…

> Because they're not good at it and are guaranteed to screw it up somehow and especially at the margins. Is this a proven or unproven assumption?

A "proven assumption" is a linguistic contradiction. Furthermore your question is invalid as "not good" and "screw it up" are not objective criteria which one could prove or fail to prove.

But I must ask: have you ever seen A Government? That's a serious question. Look at any large Government around the world and look for any complex legislation that involves a relatively new business sector or financial instrument. Much of it is obviously terrible, or will turn out to be terrible, or is occasionally so terrible that it creates ripple effects which trigger financial crisis.

Australia launched a new economy-wide GST in 2000 which did many things, and one of them was a massive transformation of the cereal bar/museli bar/granola bar marketplace—changing recipes and picking new market winners—because Governments are terrible at writing legislation.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#108

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

Hamuko wrote: post #34
sjwright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that it is not possible to publish an application on the Apple App Store without paying. Period end. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the same is true for games on the Xbox, PlayStation and nearly every mainstream games console for the past thirty years. Pretty much every games console software title included a healthy cut for N…

> Where was your outrage then? Where was the game publishers' outrage? Where was the game developers' outrage? Gaming console makers and game developers have way better relations than Apple and the people developing for the App Store. And the game console makers' cut isn't just pure greed. Sony took an estimate loss of $240-$300 on every PS3 sold at launch just in order to widen out the install base.

Actually, game developers were pissed are xbox live (I think, when they finally started to allow 'Indies') I was one and remember talking with publishers that weren't too happy about it, the long contracts and jumping around to meet their guidelines.

Also, if Sony took a loss on the PS3 to get a wider base isn't that dumping?

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#109

Post by threatofrain »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #64
rydre wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that. If the majority of the citizens want that, then they can outvote their leaders. If the minority of the citizens want that, they either convince the majority to agree, or they keep quit. I haven't bought the iPhone for the privacy stance. Apple is a part of PRISM. There is ZERO % chance that their privacy stance is…

So assuming I do not want my privacy violated, I am simply at the tyranny of the majority?

Without considering righteousness, by what might does any small thing secure itself except by tyranny or persuasion?

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#110

Post by [deleted] »

altacc wrote: post #29
sooheon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a ridiculous meme. If you enjoy the mafia's services, don't be surprised if they ask you to pay. But it's your choice to go to them (ask to be put on their platform and sell to their customers). You can make your own internet corner shop, set up payments and distribution, ignore the Apple platform, and never worry about their #mafiatax.

That choice isn't a real choice though, as it's the consumers' choice to buy an iPhone not the businesses. Businesses only have a real choice about who their customers are when there is free access to the market. The issue here is precisely that you cannot set up your own internet corner shop and ignore Apple, as that means you have no access to consumers who use Apple. Internet distribution channels are inherently o…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN