Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#191

Post by gruez » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:55 AM UTC

blibble wrote: post #42

xivzgrev wrote: post #39

I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. Users can make a purchase for their app outside of the App Store. But at the same time they put in as much friction as they could, including reframing the charge to developer as a lead commission - and the net cost to developer is HIGHER than using Apple. Of course epic is going to challenge the spirit of the…

> I mean I gotta give respect to Apple. They seem to have done the minimal technical compliance with the order. it's borderline contempt of court > I can respect though how they approached a potentially large setback for their business. I'd be pretty mad if I was the judge, they might like my 2nd ruling even less

>it's borderline contempt of court

I don't see how that's the case when judge explicitly mentions that apple is entitled to be paid for their IP.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#192

Post by arrosenberg » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:56 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #189

arrosenberg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it not subject to market forces? That doesn't make sense. 65% of domestic App Store revenue is on iOS, and the Apple app store is the only distribution channel. What market forces affect Apple's pricing power on commissions? > Can you provide a legal document or explicit law that states "vertical integration is illegal"? No, because like all things, it's about how you use it. Per the FTC - Exclusive dealing…

> 65% of domestic App Store revenue is on iOS, and the Apple app store is the only distribution channel. What market forces affect Apple's pricing power on commissions? That just proves that Apple provides a lot of value through its platform and that developers are hungry to develop for it despite the platform fees, it doesn't prove that Apple's App Store isn't "subject to market forces". > No, because like all thing…

> That just proves that Apple provides a lot of value through its platform and that developers are hungry to develop for it despite the platform fees, it doesn't prove that Apple's App Store isn't "subject to market forces".

That's really an argument for court. It could mean they've locked in a dominant market position they are abusing. Not for me to say, but you haven't made an argument otherwise.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#193

Post by CydeWeys » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:57 AM UTC

FreeTrade wrote: post #174

A law requiring hardware manufacturers to allow owners to run any software on their device would solve a lot of these Apple problems over time. Thats the root of the problem. Apple has a monopoly on the social status associated with their devices, and leverages the monopoly in many unscrupulous and toxic ways. I consider Apple the most cynical and toxic of all the tech giants.

Oh I wouldn't put it past Apple to take away your blue bubbles (or whichever one is the "good" one) if you do install non-Apple, non-Apple-app-store software on your phone.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#194

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:57 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #135

danbruc wrote: post #130

The economy primarily exists to benefit the consumers, not the producers. With that in mind, I should be able to run any operating system on an iPhone I bought. Apple should not be required to actively support this, put in extra work to document things or whatnot, but they should not be allowed to actively make things harder. If I got an iOS license, I should be able to install and run any application and be able to…

Is 30% reasonable?

I think 30% is reasonable in a vacuum. But as a TLDR for a long winded rant: I don't care what a distributor takes as long as I have other options (even if it's economically inefficient. That just proves their rate is the best option) . And IOS gave none until this crumb of an olive branch popped up.

But what's happening is that this 30% is more or less a lock-in cost for the only official way to do business on IOS. And before this ruling, you weren't even allowed to mention in the app that consumers can also pay on your website. And now we come to this article saying "okay, you can show your website were still going to charge you 90% of our rate despite handling none of those transactions". And that's where things get really dicey.

With this new perspective, the question shifts to "is apple's 27% for distribution (minus payment processing) reasonable?" and I'm less sure. Especially when Apple can throw out my app for any reason whatsoever.

To use android for comparison, I can throw an APK up to download with relatively minimal effort, with zero regards for Google's rules and I owe Google 0% of my revenue. They still take 30% for using Google play as distribution. But it's nice knowing I could theoretically host it elsewhere if I don't agree with Google's pricing (minus some bribing issues Google is currently being taken to court for). There's none of that for Apple. Firefox is just a Safari skin because Apple says so. Emulator apps are in flux based on Apple's whims. Your app may be taken down for nudity as Apple profits millions from a few dozen games that barely try to hide it.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#195

Post by gjsman-1000 » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:57 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #183

readyplayernull wrote: post #164

The infamous 30% goes back to the time when there where no app stores and we, mainly game developers, had to publish our games thru publishers who used to take a large percent of income, 50% or higher, up to 70% I heard; in order for app stores to become competitive they set the fee to 30% which was an incredibly great deal for us! It seemed to me that the democratization of game publishing finally arrived at that po…

I'm on Apple's side for this one but weren't game publishers also funding the development, marketing, and distribution?

Typically, no, actually.

Take dumb phones before iOS came along, like on Symbian or Windows Mobile. Every carrier had their own App Store, their own awful SDK, their own rules and approval processes, and 50% was the minimum share.

It wasn’t just the apps either. It was the OS itself requiring carrier approval - something Apple managed to dodge through sheer clout, but that hereditary disease still plagues Android to this day.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#196

Post by carlosjobim » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:58 AM UTC

ado__dev wrote: post #49

insane_dreamer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're not forced to use UE. you are forced to pay Epic 5% of sales (if your game makes more than $1 million), so pretty much like Apple (fees are lower of course)

But again, you have the choice of not using Epic. You can use Unity, or any other game engine, or even make your own if you're so inclined. With Apple, you don't have a choice if you want to be on iOS (which has close to 60% marketshare in the US). And I'm not arguing that apple needs to reduce the fee. They can charge whatever they want for their IAP system. But, other companies that have software/services that are…

> With Apple, you don't have a choice if you want to be on iOS

And with Epic, you don't have a choice if you want to use the Unreal Engine. How can this argument go on and on and on? All your arguments can be used in reverse with the Apple competitors. Nobody is forced into anything, especially not developers.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#197

Post by LeonB » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:58 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #135

danbruc wrote: post #130

The economy primarily exists to benefit the consumers, not the producers. With that in mind, I should be able to run any operating system on an iPhone I bought. Apple should not be required to actively support this, put in extra work to document things or whatnot, but they should not be allowed to actively make things harder. If I got an iOS license, I should be able to install and run any application and be able to…

Is 30% reasonable?

It’s unlikely that 30% is reasonable.

In the absence of a competitive market we don’t know whether 30% is reasonable but it’s unreasonable (or naive) to suspect that a closed system has hit on an efficient fee structure, from the end users point of view.

More broadly — a competitive market would allow innovation on many many variables, not just different rent-taking numbers.

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#198

Post by ericmay » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 1:58 AM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #192

ericmay wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 65% of domestic App Store revenue is on iOS, and the Apple app store is the only distribution channel. What market forces affect Apple's pricing power on commissions? That just proves that Apple provides a lot of value through its platform and that developers are hungry to develop for it despite the platform fees, it doesn't prove that Apple's App Store isn't "subject to market forces". > No, because like all thing…

> That just proves that Apple provides a lot of value through its platform and that developers are hungry to develop for it despite the platform fees, it doesn't prove that Apple's App Store isn't "subject to market forces". That's really an argument for court. It could mean they've locked in a dominant market position they are abusing. Not for me to say, but you haven't made an argument otherwise.

Sure, but friend aren't we just discussing this on the Internet? It's all an argument for court :)

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#199

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 2:00 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #198

arrosenberg wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That just proves that Apple provides a lot of value through its platform and that developers are hungry to develop for it despite the platform fees, it doesn't prove that Apple's App Store isn't "subject to market forces". That's really an argument for court. It could mean they've locked in a dominant market position they are abusing. Not for me to say, but you haven't made an argument otherwise.

Sure, but friend aren't we just discussing this on the Internet? It's all an argument for court :)

[deleted]

Re: Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

#200

Post by throw10920 » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 2:02 AM UTC

Someone wrote: post #172

danbruc wrote: post #130

The economy primarily exists to benefit the consumers, not the producers. With that in mind, I should be able to run any operating system on an iPhone I bought. Apple should not be required to actively support this, put in extra work to document things or whatnot, but they should not be allowed to actively make things harder. If I got an iOS license, I should be able to install and run any application and be able to…

As a hacker, I want those, too, but I’m not 100% sure I want that as a developer or user. It also has disadvantages. Part of what Apple sell app developers is that piracy is hard on the App Store. It also benefits developers and users that tweaking apps to cheat in games is as good as impossible. A cloned or patched iOS that allowed users to install anything could change that by no longer checking app signatures.

> It also benefits developers and users that tweaking apps to cheat in games is as good as impossible.

This would be just as impossible in a well-designed version of iOS that allowed arbitrary app installation - iOS could do client-side attestation, and app developers could choose to prevent users from playing online matches with app versions that aren't attested by Apple (or a hypothetical Steam for iOS, for instance).