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

111–120 of 411 posts

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

#111

Post by JimDabell »

giobox wrote: post #77
JimDabell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

This is still not correct. The original claim was “every single business on the planet”. That’s ridiculously overstated.

Even if you massively narrow the scope to only businesses that have iOS apps that make money directly through the app, it’s still not true. The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps.

Take Uber, for instance. They make vast amounts of money through their iOS app. They do not have to pay Apple 30%, or 15%, or anything beyond the basic $99/yr developer account fee. They absolutely do not have to pay 30% for access to the platform.

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

#112

Post by radley »

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 .

They can charge whatever they want. But they can't force exclusivity. Without that, terms and benefits would be equitable.

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

#113

Post by chongli »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #106
chongli wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as you open the door to side-loading, you'll have scammers and data-siphoners force all their users to side-load so that they can completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features. The entire iOS ecosystem is built on the App Store review process as a gatekeeper for entitlements and the capabilities they grant (through API access). How do you solve that problem for side-loaded apps?

Sideloading, AKA "installing software on your device", is something PCs have been handling just fine for decades. It's fine to warn the user when they're going off the beaten trail, but do not lock them in a cage to prevent them from doing so. If they ignore the warnings and get scammed because they are unable to identify reputable software from disreputable software, they learn a life lesson. Life goes on. There sho…

There are entire classes of people who have simply given up on PCs and only use a phone, so I would call that substantial evidence that PCs have NOT "been handling [it] just fine." For these folks, PCs are a total failure; a dead end. A danger zone to be avoided at all costs.

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

#115

Post by celsoazevedo »

xmprt wrote: post #80
fhennig wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alr…

Android itself is fine, but in most of the world you need Android with Google services, otherwise banking apps, contactless payments, some games, etc, don't work.

The app sideloading changes they're about to introduce[0]? Affects their Pixels, Samsungs, OnePlus, Sony, etc, old and new. It can't be disabled. The work around is to use ADB to install apks.

So while you have more choice of hardware, Android skins with more or less features, different long term support, prices, etc, in practice you're stuck with what Google wants. Your options are Apple or Google.

---

[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-si...

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

#116

Post by anonymous908213 »

chongli wrote: post #113
anonymous908213 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sideloading, AKA "installing software on your device", is something PCs have been handling just fine for decades. It's fine to warn the user when they're going off the beaten trail, but do not lock them in a cage to prevent them from doing so. If they ignore the warnings and get scammed because they are unable to identify reputable software from disreputable software, they learn a life lesson. Life goes on. There sho…

There are entire classes of people who have simply given up on PCs and only use a phone, so I would call that substantial evidence that PCs have NOT "been handling [it] just fine." For these folks, PCs are a total failure; a dead end. A danger zone to be avoided at all costs.

If you have a citation that droves of people are abandoning PCs for phones specifically because PCs allow them to install software of their choice, rather than other reasons like the convenience of a computer that fits in their hand, I'd be interested in seeing it. Because that sounds like an absolutely outrageous claim to be asserting as a fact to me.

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

#117

Post by kelthuzad »

itake wrote: post #108
gpm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.

Mobile apps mobile app fraud empties life savings accounts. I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. Installing an app shouldn't eliminate 30 years of life savings.

This is the "think of the children" equivalent that is being regurgitated ad nauseam. Anyone who pretends that Apple cares about anything other than profit is lying to others and themselves.

>I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working.

It has been working on Android just fine. And if Apple is supposedly so concerned with security, then why did it take them so damn long to implement a simple mechanism to stop thieves from simply changing your password using your pin? Only after relentless pressure did they implement additional security, which took them far too long. The "security" ruse is nothing but propaganda to protect Apple's monopoly on app distribution.

[0] https://tidbits.com/2023/02/26/how-a-thief-with-your-iphone-...

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

#118

Post by stevage »

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.

>Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market.

You're saying, companies should be able to do whatever they want, even if it's bad for the consumer. How can you describe that position as "being on the side of the consumer"?

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

#120

Post by stevage »

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 .

Payment processors like Stripe, Wise etc are typically taking around 1-2% so that's a good anchor.
Post reply on HN