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

211–220 of 258 posts

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

#211

Post by cm2187 »

jasode wrote: post #209
cm2187 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is the last time you bought a software in a brick and mortar store? Every software is now downloadable, including video games. There are no cost other than hosting. I don't think the "it could have been distributed at much greater cost with a horse carriage a century ago" argument is very compelling.

>There are no cost other than hosting. If one is trying to sell non-free software, it requires a payment processor like PayPal, Stripe, DigitalRiver, or paying a bank a monthly maintenance fee for a full-blown merchant account to accept credit-cards. A cursory google of Steam says they charge 5% fees for video games. They all have fees based on a percentage of the sales price. Even something outside of traditional pa…

Agreed. Add hosting and the fair cost is probably in the region of 7%. That's still very far from 30%.

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

#212

Post by ghaff »

GordonS wrote: post #196
myhf wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price of "Angry Birds" in 2009: $0.99 one-time Price of the same "Angry Birds" in 2018: $0 to install, $1.99 per 80 gems, no way to disable in-app ads or purchases. Free-to-play is an increase in price.

I really despise the move from transparent, one-time pricing, to opaque IAP.

I agree. Unfortunately the complaint is mostly about hating a market dominated by people who increasingly won't pay anything for goods that aren't actually welded in place but will grudgingly fork over money in the form of eyeballs (i.e. ads) and "tricks" (in-app purchases, hidden fees, etc.). Personally, I'd mostly prefer honest up-front pricing (though subscriptions make sense for some things) but the market mostly doesn't want that.

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

#213

Post by Tsubasachan »

GordonS wrote: post #195
Tsubasachan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers love Apple because there is no piracy or competition from F-droid. Also the Apple clientele are proven to be bigger spenders. I love the Android community because they come up with cool things like DNS66 or YouTube Vanced. Ad blocking on iOS is halfhearted. All that said Apple can do what they want consumers have a choice: buy an Android phone.

Is piracy really an issue on Android? I've never pirated an Android app in the 10 years or so I've been using Android, and I don't know anyone who was. Would love to see some unbiased numbers on this.

Well providing numbers for something that is illegal and happens on shady websites is difficult, just as nobody can tell you exactly how much cocaine enters the port of Rotterdam each year. But I found this to be an interesting read.

https://www.xda-developers.com/piracy-testimonies-causes-and...

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

#215

Post by RKearney »

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.

You can sign and run apps on your own device for free now. You no longer have to pay $99.

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

#216

Post by RKearney »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #160
RKearney wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS This has never been the case. You’ve always been able to side load apps that are either signed by an Enterprise code signing cert (used to be $300/yr), or your own developer code signing certificate ($99/yr). The former allowed for redistribution outside of the App Store.

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

They absolutely can and absolutely did back in the day. Now it’s even easier because you can load apps on to your own device for free via Xcode.

Anyone who claims Apple prevented side loading clearly never bothered to research that claim.

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

#217

Post by screye »

GordonS wrote: post #195
Tsubasachan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers love Apple because there is no piracy or competition from F-droid. Also the Apple clientele are proven to be bigger spenders. I love the Android community because they come up with cool things like DNS66 or YouTube Vanced. Ad blocking on iOS is halfhearted. All that said Apple can do what they want consumers have a choice: buy an Android phone.

Is piracy really an issue on Android? I've never pirated an Android app in the 10 years or so I've been using Android, and I don't know anyone who was. Would love to see some unbiased numbers on this.

I think part of the problem is that whales use Apple.

Despite having 80+% of the market mobile market share, most of these customers are low spending people looking for vfm phones and good enough free apps. Apple is the one that captures the top 5% of customers who spend on subscription services and expensive apps.

This gives the false appearance of Android being piracy heaven. Because, why else would a 4 times bigger consumer base generate a smaller revenue.

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

#218

Post by syntheticcdo »

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…

Your Spotify example is a good argument FOR Apple's model. In that case, consumers have a choice to either a) purchase a Spotify subscription via the web app, or b) purchase the subscription in app -- at a higher cost.

Some consumers still choose to purchase in app- for a variety of reasons: ease of use, speed, accessibility, streamlined with the rest of their Apple purchases, who knows. People choosing to overpay for Spotify shows the Apple ecosystem and model provides value to at least some consumers. Whether it is worth 30% is a different question.

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

#219

Post by auslander »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #190
auslander wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Free apps are most likely to sell your data. Don't be a product, or if its your app, charge decent price and don't sell user's data :)

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

#220

Post by jsjohnst »

cm2187 wrote: post #208
jsjohnst wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace. Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%. Think it’s better in brick…

When is the last time you bought a software in a brick and mortar store? Every software is now downloadable, including video games. There are no cost other than hosting. I don't think the "it could have been distributed at much greater cost with a horse carriage a century ago" argument is very compelling.

When was the last time I bought software in a brick and mortar store? It's been so long I can't remember. I have bought software on Amazon in the past year though.

That still doesn't negate my point though, Gamestop shelves are covered in video games, electronic stores sell software of all types. Do you legitimately think they would be on the shelves if they didn't sell? My root point was to step outside of your bubble and understand that many folks have different experiences than you. In those less optimal environments for selling software, the markups for the store are far greater than the 30%. Do I think the 30% is warranted? I don't have the financial figures to say one way or another (and neither do you), but the fact many think 30% is exorbitant and it should be 3-8% is a bit absurd and really isn't reflective of reality for the costs involved.

Post reply on HN