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

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 258 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#181

Post by infinity0 »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #67

Perhaps it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m hopeful that this doesn’t go anywhere for the simple fact that I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything. It would be cool to have an iOS equivalent of F-Droid, but I’d rather that not come at the cost of scattering commercial iOS apps across stores. I’m not keen on the idea of non-WebKit web engines on iOS either because it w…

> I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything.

The nice thing about F-Droid is that the repository format is open. So you only need one "app-store" app installed (F-Droid), then add multiple app sources that are each controlled by some app curator. For example, the "F-Droid repo", the "Guardian Project repo", the "copperhead OS repo", the "micro G repo", etc etc. This allows for a unified user experience without centralising app execution power in the hands of one organisation.

If you've used GNU/Linux this is exactly how package repos work (and what F-Droid was inspired by), since several decades before the term "App Store" was invented.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#182

Post by auslander »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #171

Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores, or sideloading, or something else that keeps the App Store from being the exclusive distributor of iOS apps. But, a few notes that are important to keep in mind: (1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the le…

> Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores

I'm leaning in quite opposite way. Apple enforces security and privacy policies of its store apps, which is main reason why it is much safer to use than Android.

As for app prices, Apple Store is an open competitive market, no apps are restricted to compete. I see the point being moot. Adtech industry would love to see Apple lose though, don't let them.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#183

Post by binomialxenon »

askafriend wrote: post #175
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those methods permits the general public to install the app.

Good, imo.

Okay, I used to be an iOS user, I'm not rich, and blowing $99 per year to sign apps is a lot of money for something that should be free. What if I'm just a normal techie who wants to use software that Apple doesn't like? Sure, bury sideloading in the settings or make it only able to be activated from a computer, but charging that much money for the privilege of loading software is ridiculous.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#184

Post by binomialxenon »

dwaite wrote: post #164
sulam wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s use the Kindle app as an example then. The app cannot link to their site when I search for a book I don’t have. If it did, the app would be banned. So Apple is trying to extract a 30% premium from Amazon and the only way for them to avoid that is to give me a shitty experience that quantifiable harms me (I waste time to search for and then hop through the download behavior, adding friction to what should be a s…

I disagree with it being called an Apple premium. Apple has a store. Amazon has a store. Who is to say that Amazon's portion of operational costs and profit isn't the premium? Amazon could choose to have a Kindle experience which doesn't go through the App store, such as a HTML 5 app. They distribute in the store because of the discoverability (and likely because they prefer to have a native app that can enforce thei…

HTML apps are never even close to working as well as a native app, they're generally a shitty compromise. If $COMPANY makes an app that would be crippled by Apple's policies, they should be free to distribute it through another channel to iOS users.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#185

Post by ksec »

ken wrote: post #113
threeseed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.

- Payment processing, yes (though no other payment processor charges anywhere near 30% -- Stripe is 2.9%, I think?). - Build, not exactly -- only in the sense that they can handle minor upgrades via bitcode for new ARM variants, if you choose to enable that. - Moderate/curate, sure. - Provide a lucrative channel? Yes, but only because they've made it the only channel by fiat. I'm not sure I see 30% worth of mandatory…

Apple do offer iTunes Credit and often does discount of up to 15% from Retailers. ( I am betting those iTunes Credit are wholesale at anywhere between 13% to 10% discount, and Retailers takes in ~10 - 8% after deducting processing fees )

Still, not many buy iTunes Credit. Most just use Credit Card direct from Apple Pay. But even if we have included all these, the 30% is still excessive.

The problem Apple is having is similar to their phone, it is not about the price tag or the 30% charges, it is people paying for it fail to see or justify its value. Apple will need to offer more "values". From Developers to its Users.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#186

Post by sbuk »

binomialxenon wrote: post #183
askafriend wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good, imo.

Okay, I used to be an iOS user, I'm not rich, and blowing $99 per year to sign apps is a lot of money for something that should be free. What if I'm just a normal techie who wants to use software that Apple doesn't like? Sure, bury sideloading in the settings or make it only able to be activated from a computer, but charging that much money for the privilege of loading software is ridiculous.

> ...for something that should be free

What reason should it be for?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#187

Post by ksec »

jm20 wrote: post #127
lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

This is really only an issue with low-margin licensing subscriptions like Spotify and Netflix, where they would lose money on every purchase if 30% of their margins went to Apple. While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.

I have to disagree where 30% is a low margin. This is different to real estate where there are actually foot traffic in front of your store. The App Store is more like a nation charging 30% tax regardless where you live, and that is on Revenue not Profits.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#188

Post by sbuk »

lbacaj wrote: post #116
ihuman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long have you been using the iOS app store for? IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2, and way lower than they were before the iPhone. I remember simple games for Palm OS costing at about $20 [0] . Nowadays that game would either be [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware....

I have had an iPhone since the first one and access to the App Store since they introduced it in the 3G. I completely agree that prices on Apps have come down but that is just what happens when a new market is created. Supply and demand has to set in. Developers are guessing what people will pay at first and if they find they can sell millions more if they just drop the price to 99c then they might just do that. In m…

How would it do consumers good?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#189

Post by sbuk »

ken wrote: post #113
threeseed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.

- Payment processing, yes (though no other payment processor charges anywhere near 30% -- Stripe is 2.9%, I think?). - Build, not exactly -- only in the sense that they can handle minor upgrades via bitcode for new ARM variants, if you choose to enable that. - Moderate/curate, sure. - Provide a lucrative channel? Yes, but only because they've made it the only channel by fiat. I'm not sure I see 30% worth of mandatory…

Storage/hosting, support and distribution (bandwidth) are missing frim the list. Arguably, it may not cover 30%, but it does provide for more than 2.9%

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#190

Post by daveFNbuck »

auslander wrote: post #182
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #171

Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores, or sideloading, or something else that keeps the App Store from being the exclusive distributor of iOS apps. But, a few notes that are important to keep in mind: (1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the le…

> Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores I'm leaning in quite opposite way. Apple enforces security and privacy policies of its store apps, which is main reason why it is much safer to use than Android. As for app prices, Apple Store is an open competitive market, no apps are restricted to compete. I see the point being moot. Adtech industry wo…

> no apps are restricted to compete

Apps are restricted from competing on price. I can't release a 79 cent app to compete with a similar 99 cent app.

Post reply on HN