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

Apple's bad faith 27% tax on web purchases

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 408 posts

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

#241

Post by arrosenberg »

selectodude wrote: post #209
arrosenberg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Steam all take 30% for distribution and hosting, same as Apple. > It's not a monopoly. I believe you have accurately described a cartel, however.

Epic has a game store charging 12 percent and nobody seems to care much about it.

Probably has to do with market power. For my money, none of these companies should be allowed to own a game marketplace. The distribution channels should be stand alone from the hardware and software producers.

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

#242

Post by aurareturn »

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…

  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.
I should be able to run any OS on my Samsung TV that I bought. Samsung should support it with an SDK. They should provide warranty and support for me if the OS I chose to install destroyed the screen.

Do you see how silly the above statement is?

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

#243

Post by jojobas »

simonklitj wrote: post #212
jojobas wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to use Unreal Engine, there are many others and you can write your own. Distribution to apple devices requires using apple's store, which is really the core issue here. If IBM/Intel/MS could pull this off in the 80s we'd still live in a stone age.

You don’t have to distribute to Apple devices, there are many others and you can make your own. Help me understand how this is different?

You can achieve the result of making an FPS game without Unreal Engine. You can't achieve the result of offering your product to about half US phone users without apple store.

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

#244

Post by jjulius »

ado__dev wrote: post #15
ribosometronome wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that option is important to you, why deeply embed yourself in an ecosystem that doesn't have it when others exist?

Apple's hardware is unmatched unfortunately.

"That's how they get ya."

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

#245

Post by tomrod »

skygazer wrote: post #22
jrochkind1 wrote: post #4

Can anyone provide a link to context on what OP is talking about, for those who don't know it? I don't understand what Apple is actually doing from this tweet/thread. Are they are somehow managing to force even payment links from ordinary web sites in an ordinary web browser (Safari?) to go through them as payment processor? (How?) Or is this a new rule for app store apps (what is the new rule?) Or a new payment stru…

No. They’re allowing alternate payment processing with a link from an an iOS app to a webpage, and reducing their commission to either 12 or 27% representing a 3% discount for not doing the payment processing themselves. They’re basically following the ruling based on some California law being applied nationally that the Supreme Court declined to hear on appeal. The judge said Apple would have to allow links out to a…

This is leading to awful, awful outcomes.

If I owned a large payment registers company or similar type of capital that is hard to switch immediately, I'd be licking my predatory lips.

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

#246

Post by s1artibartfast »

arrosenberg wrote: post #230
s1artibartfast wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cartel =/= same rate. It requires more than just price matching. this is why gas stations and grocery stores aren't cartels either.

There are absolutely antitrust issues with grocery stores - Kroger/Albertsons is being contested right now! It's a major contributor to food deserts. It's not a cartel because the main players aren't acting in concert, but they are attempting to monopolize regionally. Walmart has also concentrated way too much power, but that's the 800 lb gorilla no one wants to touch. That said, gas stations and grocery stores deal…

I dont have an opinion on regional monopoly, just the cartel issue, because I almost never hear it used correctly.

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

#247

Post by tomrod »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #64
threeseed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because iOS apps talk to the Notarisation Service on launch. So they know total app installs as well as the installs purchased from the App Store.

That metric doesn't work accurately even in the simplest case (buying an app), let alone for more nuanced transactions -- in-app purchases, subscription tiers, etc. It's unclear how how Apple-the-middle-man can insert itself to effectively rent seek from customers/developers now.

Charging both sides of a market _typically_ results in crash of the two sided (platform-hosted) market. With iOS and Android being basically near feature parity, this is to Google's favor.

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

#248

Post by Bud »

kibwen wrote: post #53
massysett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps Apple’s hardware is unmatched in part because they profit from it by using the very mechanisms you don’t like. The engineering resources to focus on perfect hardware aren’t cheap. There is plenty of junk hardware out there that gives you more freedom.

If having good hardware means spending a lot on hardware development, then the price of the hardware can reflect that, rather than being subsidized by unrelated business segments.

[dead]

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

#249

Post by tomrod »

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…

> can you still claim a monopoly if developers can technically allow purchase outside and have a choice?

Yes, antitrust activity isn't solely based on the market concentration (HHI) but also on the _actions_ taken by large players. Monopolistic or monopsonistic activity results in net loss to consumer welfare.

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

#250

Post by AnthonyMouse »

incrudible wrote: post #201
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…

The 30% goes back to retail markup, i.e. the what the seller who buys and physically stocks your game could expect to keep for gross profit. Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you.

> Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you.

This is inherently in conflict with having a single store for everything, because the everything store would then have all of your competitors in it too.

It also doesn't explain why you still have to pay when you do your own marketing through some other means and the customer is already looking for you in particular.

Post reply on HN