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

Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 346 posts

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#241

Post by haswell »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #209
haswell wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I phrased that poorly. My point was that it isn’t clear if there’s a point at which the balance of the relationship shifts such that what was once reasonable (paying fees to Apple for access to their customers, among other things) is no longer reasonable. In the Netflix scenario, it’s clear that Apple wasn’t the primary source of customer acquisition. The scenario where an unknown app grows and gets big based on Appl…

I don't think we need to decide precisely what dollar amount is reasonable for Apple to charge for the use of their app store; that's something Apple and the app developers can negotiate between themselves. The problem is that Apple is currently allowed to use their software in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers, and they're able to use that ownership as leverage in any negotiations. Ap…

To be clear, I'm not a fan of Apple's vice grip here. But I also don't think I agree with this:

> in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers

Netflix and its users may find it annoying that anything related to subscriptions has to be danced around (I certainly do), but I don't think it's quite right to classify Apple's rules around directing users to subscription management features on the Netflix side as "ownership" of those customers.

The restriction feels onerous, yes, but is something other than ownership. They are wielding the value of their marketplace as leverage, and it's this power that is (rightfully) under scrutiny.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#242

Post by rhelz »

anfilt wrote: post #170

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with i…

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves?

For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, they are the ones who really own the phone.

I really don't think a property rights argument has any suasion here at all.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#243

Post by Ajedi32 »

rhelz wrote: post #242
anfilt wrote: post #170

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with i…

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, t…

> Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves?

They could do that, but they don't. I don't recall having to sign a rental agreement stating that I don't actually own the phone and I'm only allowed to purchase Apple-approved applications in order to get an iPhone. If Apple was forced make their customers go through that process then the downsides and anti-trust problems associated with such restrictions would be far more explicit.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#244

Post by zuhsetaqi »

rhelz wrote: post #242
anfilt wrote: post #170

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with i…

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, t…

They did own the phone until they sold it to a customer. After the customer bought it Apple no longer owns the phone but the customer does.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#245

Post by brightball »

burnerthrow008 wrote: post #193
brightball wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jason Fried (Basecamp) really explained this in great detail recently. https://twitter.com/jasonfried/status/1743421673871929723

The main thrust of his argument seems to be that developers should be able to engage in price discrimination. That's cool and all, but it seems anti-competitive to me as a customer. I don't want to pay more just because I don't have time to write each developer and beg for a discount. Remember, Amazon famously had to back down from advertising different prices to Americans in urban and rural areas due to customer bac…

The thing is, why should you have to pay extra to offer better customer service?

With a product like Hey, you're signing up for their email service. You might use that service on your desktop, web browser, Android phone or iPhone. It's more than a little nuts on Apple's part to try to force a product like that through the iPhone system, especially because if I start using an email account I'm going to continue using it whether I have an iPhone or not.

Should Microsoft get a cut if I connect to my email account through a desktop app?

The mobile app is merely 1 of many interfaces to the service. In Jason's case, he's arguing that they are setup to run a business to offer service to their customers...all of their customers. Apple forcing him to fracture his users into iPhone vs everybody else is just bad business before you factor in any cut at all.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#246

Post by Ajedi32 »

haswell wrote: post #241
Ajedi32 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need to decide precisely what dollar amount is reasonable for Apple to charge for the use of their app store; that's something Apple and the app developers can negotiate between themselves. The problem is that Apple is currently allowed to use their software in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers, and they're able to use that ownership as leverage in any negotiations. Ap…

To be clear, I'm not a fan of Apple's vice grip here. But I also don't think I agree with this: > in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers Netflix and its users may find it annoying that anything related to subscriptions has to be danced around (I certainly do), but I don't think it's quite right to classify Apple's rules around directing users to subscription management features on the Ne…

They're not just wielding the value of their marketplace though. If that was all it was, then Netflix could threaten to distribute their application to Apple customers through a different marketplace as part of their negotiations. But users aren't allowed to install applications without going through Apple's marketplace. Apple does, in some limited sense, "own" those customers. That's the issue.

The DMA tried to fix this, but failed because Apple just shifted to charging per install even for applications that don't use Apple's marketplace. And if you don't want to play by those rules, Apple won't sign your app and iPhones will refuse to allow your customers to install it. There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#247

Post by Nevermark »

LamaOfRuin wrote: post #230
turtlebits wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a different business model. See: game consoles.

This is generally viewed as okay for game consoles because they are sold at cost or at loss for a large portion of their lifetime. This is very much not true of any Apple hardware.

They also are not as crucial as mobile internet devices for people’s daily lives, or at the center of wide ranging critical ecosystems.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#248

Post by Nevermark »

rhelz wrote: post #242
anfilt wrote: post #170

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with i…

Wouldn't the best way to look at this to be that the phone is Apple's property, and therefore they have the right to do anything with it? Including not selling to you all the property rights, and reserving some for themselves? For me, the central contradiction of this kind of rights-based argument is this--the stronger you make property rights, the more justified actions like Apples seems to be, because, after all, t…

Apple does not have the legal right to rescind the “rental” and retrieve your phone.

So it doesn’t, in fact, own it.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#249

Post by SirMaster »

anfilt wrote: post #170

A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with i…

How does this apply to any electronic device with a computer inside though?

Can you run your own software on your television, car, smart fridge, etc?

The default expectation seems to be no, you can't.

Re: Developers revolt over Apple's new app store rules

#250

Post by wyattjoh »

chrisjj wrote: post #35
wyattjoh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The allure of the Apple ecosystem is the whole "it just works". I would absolutely want to be warned (and have less technically minded family members warned) when they are being sent to some third-party payment system when they're used to the guaranteed safe environment that Apple provides.

> the guaranteed safe environment that Apple provides. Guaranteed by whom? Not Apple, for sure.

Absolutely by Apple. Any subscription or charge against the users account all collects to the same place where it's always the User that has absolute control over their subscriptions. Want to cancel it? Easy, one place, one tap, done.
Post reply on HN