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

271–280 of 346 posts

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

#271

Post by [deleted] »

MilaM wrote: post #152
pflats wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose an author uploads their book to ExamplePrint Inc, a one stop shop that prints made-to-order books for customers. The reader goes to ExamplePrint and buys the book. ExamplePrint prints a softcover copy of the book on the spot and ships it out to the reader. The user pays ExamplePrint, who pays the author some fraction of the user's money. The reader is a customer of ExamplePrint and reading the author's book.…

Nice analogy. The problem is, that ExamplePrint is the only shop the author can use to reach his customers. There is also PrintExample (Android), but it's customer base has zero overlap with ExamplePrint. Therefore the author has no choice but to use ExamplePrint's service.

[deleted]

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

#272

Post by smoldesu »

graeme wrote: post #78
e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. This is not true at all. Netflix customers are Netflix customers, not Apple; the same goes for Amazon Kindle, Spotify, etc. Netflix literally cannot include a link to netflix.com in their app, otherwi…

If you’re a Netflix customer you just log into the app. There’s no issue. The debate is around people who are Apple customers but not Netflix customers, and who download the Netflix app through the App Store.

Am I an Apple Customer because I own a Magic Trackpad? Are there fees or conditions that I should be rationally subject to because I made that purchasing decision?

This mentality of corporate fiefdom is new to me. Reminds me of another vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services that fared poorly under US jurisdiction.

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

#273

Post by Ajedi32 »

wilg wrote: post #255
Ajedi32 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take: I don't think this is okay for game consoles either. If I want to install a GameCube emulator on my PS5 I should be able to and there's nothing Sony should be able to do to stop me. If that means they eventually end up having to charge more for their hardware to make up for reduced software sales, so be it. If they really insist on trying to force their customers to only install stuff through their app stor…

Why does this matter when you can buy other computers that allow you to install whatever software you want? Why do all computers have to work the way you want instead of you just purchasing ones that have the features you want?

The computers themselves generally do work the way I want, my issue is that the manufacturers have put in place artificial restrictions to prevent me from using them in any way other than the way they want. I don't mind reasonably justifiable technical limitations. Just don't "sell" me a product and then put a lock on it that I the supposed owner am not allowed to open.

As for why it matters... companies get away with all sort of anti-consumer nonsense due to these limitations. Samsung putting ads on my TV's main menu[1] wouldn't be as big an issue if there was an easy way for me to install custom firmware.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/co5aw4/unrem...

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

#274

Post by lxgr »

sleepybrett wrote: post #135
e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. This is not true at all. Netflix customers are Netflix customers, not Apple; the same goes for Amazon Kindle, Spotify, etc. Netflix literally cannot include a link to netflix.com in their app, otherwi…

It is absolutely true. Apple doesn't take a cut from any of your examples EXCEPT if they make that payment through the app on their phone. If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing. If your customers use the rails that apple has greased up FOR YOU then they take a cut.

> If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing.

In fact, they see 27% [1], and that's very new – it used to be impossible before.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

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

#275

Post by haswell »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #246
haswell wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm trying to understand your point. Netflix already distributes its app via the App Store and pays no fees for users who subscribe directly with Netflix. I was a Netflix customer before I was an Apple customer, and have never touched Netflix billing from my Apple device. Netflix pays no money to Apple for my subscription.

They pay money for customers who originate from the Apple in-app sales funnel. Netflix could choose to continue requiring all subscriptions to be handled externally, but I understand why they don't.

> There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely an alternative (to paying 30% of subscription fees), and it's what these companies are already doing. It's just an alternative that many people dislike, which is why the DMA exists. At issue is also a question of whether the DMA actually makes sense, which was the central point of my pondering in the GP comment.

I think we might be arguing orthogonal points.

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

#276

Post by lxgr »

menacingly wrote: post #36

This is a complicated issue. On the one hand, I tend to have a generally unfavorable view of apple. I don't like closed systems, oversimplified to the point of missing critical settings UX, etc. That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. If the…

> "I can access such an irresistible amount of customers via apple, I just wish I could take those benefits à la carte.

Yes, that's called "unbundling", and it's the bread and butter of antitrust regulation: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

It's not an exact match to Apple's situation, though; that's why there was a need for the DMA in the first place.

> [...] I do wonder if EU flies a little close to the sun with this stuff. You can't legislate that someone lose more money than they gain with access to your market. I'm not sure we're there on this one, but the patience can't be infinite.

What is Apple going to do? Stop selling iPhones in the EU, the third largest economy in the world? That would only make sense if iPhones and iPads indeed were loss leaders for the App Store.

Apple is a corporation, and corporations don't throw irrational tantrums. They do sometimes try to hold their customers hostage, but that type of behavior has a mixed track record at best.

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

#277

Post by lurking_swe »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #273
wilg wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this matter when you can buy other computers that allow you to install whatever software you want? Why do all computers have to work the way you want instead of you just purchasing ones that have the features you want?

The computers themselves generally do work the way I want, my issue is that the manufacturers have put in place artificial restrictions to prevent me from using them in any way other than the way they want. I don't mind reasonably justifiable technical limitations. Just don't "sell" me a product and then put a lock on it that I the supposed owner am not allowed to open. As for why it matters... companies get away wit…

i’m frustrated by the situation too, but your argument falls short for me.

to play devils advocate - you knew all of this when you bought your iphone. Further, apple lets customers return a product within 2 weeks if they are unhappy with it. Your argument would be more convincing if apple suddenly started restricting the device in a different way AFTER purchase.

That being said, i’d LOVE being able to install my own apps without apples approval.

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

#278

Post by lxgr »

gretch wrote: post #234
lozenge wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is taxes are set and disbursed democratically. Apple taxes are whatever they want them to be and are disbursed according to their board. Heck they could introduce a tax on Amazon deliveries when Amazon is installed through the Apple App Store and nobody would be able to do anything about it. Except the EU that is.

> nobody would be able to do anything about it Just don’t use an iPhone. And Amazon - just don’t put an app on the iOS store. I mean it really is that simple. If customers actually cared about any of this stuff they would just switch. If there was enough demand another competitor would emerge (windows phone, black berry, foss)

If "just don't buy at the monopoly" would work, we wouldn't need antitrust regulation.

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

#279

Post by haswell »

withinboredom wrote: post #236
threeseed wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you aren't their property. You just invented that straw man. And the simple act of using a phone is you making a conscious decision to agree to accept the terms and conditions that come with buying any product. You are in no way forced to and by supporting alternatives you help to change the market for everyone.

Where can I read the terms and conditions for my shoes? My pants? What about my vase I bought? Objects don’t come with terms and conditions.

Your shoes and pants don't depend on Apple infrastructure and engineering resources to function. Your vase doesn't run software.

These phones are not inanimate objects; they are computers that run software that is distributed under terms and conditions, and depend on central services the access to which is governed by terms and conditions.

I understand the position that this is a Bad Thing. I'm typing this from a Linux machine for that reason. But the analogy here is problematic.

Edit: to be clear, this comment is not endorsing Apple’s position. I understand it, even if I don’t like it. The point is that the acceptable use of a shoe is not instructive here.

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

#280

Post by withinboredom »

haswell wrote: post #279
withinboredom wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can I read the terms and conditions for my shoes? My pants? What about my vase I bought? Objects don’t come with terms and conditions.

Your shoes and pants don't depend on Apple infrastructure and engineering resources to function. Your vase doesn't run software. These phones are not inanimate objects; they are computers that run software that is distributed under terms and conditions, and depend on central services the access to which is governed by terms and conditions. I understand the position that this is a Bad Thing. I'm typing this from a Lin…

An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. There are zero laws that prevent me from taking it apart, running it over, tossing it off a bridge (well, maybe that last one because littering is usually illegal). There’s not even any laws preventing me from flashing the device with whatever code I want.

If you want to complain that a phone needs Apple infrastructure to function, you should check out the phones from the 80’s and 90’s. They were a lot bulkier but a phone doesn’t inherently need software and internet to function.

These are computers, with modems, that happen to fit in the palm of your hand. They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. The iPad even has the exact same CPUs that are literally used in computers.

So, saying these things are somehow special is a little bit silly. The only thing special is the locked down code that came preinstalled that I sometimes regret agreeing to using. If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux.

Sadly, I need a phone more than I have money to waste.

Post reply on HN