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

Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 411 posts

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#281

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pacifika wrote: post #276
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" I feel like fines aren't even an appropriate remedy for this. They're both inherently arbitrary and not something that actually fixes it. And that combination gives governments a perverse incentive, because they get $2B to put in their own pockets…

Imagine the response if the uk tried to break up apple

> Imagine the response if the uk tried to break up apple

This right here is why they need to be broken up. Are we supposed to have a company more powerful than a country?

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#282

Post by victorbjorklund »

thisislife2 wrote: post #216

> “developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent’s lawyers said was usually 30%.” > “The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers.” And that's why I stopped buying Apple products - ultimately it is the end user that pays for everything. Apple exploits both developers and its consumers.

You don't think that developers of Android apps pass on their fees to Google Store to the consumers? Or the developers of web apps pass on the fees of Stripe to the consumers?

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#283

Post by nake89 »

crims0n wrote: post #11

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .

If apple made it easy to install other stores. E.g. when you open the iPhone for the first time it would not prioritize the app store (like I think it does with browsers, at least android does).

This would create a more fair market. This would allow for competition. Which would allow prices to even out and be more fair.

Long winded way of saying, I don't know what the fair percentage would be. But I know as it stands now, we cannot even begin to know it.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#284

Post by victorbjorklund »

crims0n wrote: post #11

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .

I think the best thing would be if Apple just allowed other payment providers so like Stripe and I'm not sure I haven't followed it totally if they now kind of have been forced to do that but I think then you have a free market where developers can choose whether they want to use apples in app payments which are easier and probably results in better conversion rates or they want to use an external like Stripe or something like that. I don't think it's reasonable to pay for the app hosting or development other than the $100 fee per year that should certainly cover the cost of storing a few megabytes of an app.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#285

Post by jeroenhd »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #277
jeroenhd wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google-approved Android, at least for now until some judge hopefully shuts down the idiotic "verified developers" programme, has a range of app stores with different options. Unfortunately, Amazon shut theirs down, but charging a 30% convenience fee is a choice there. Inside of the EU the same is true for iOS, of course, although Apple still somehow charging developers per install makes it hard to provide apps for fr…

> Google-approved Android, at least for now until some judge hopefully shuts down the idiotic "verified developers" programme, has a range of app stores with different options. In order for such a competitor to be viable for use by developers, it has to be installed on the devices of customers, which Google has acted to prevent. Google Play has over 90% market share on Android and has constrained OEMs from shipping d…

> has constrained OEMs from shipping devices with other stores installed

Every Samsung phone comes with the Samsung Store. My Xiaomi phone came with a Xiaomi store. I don't know about any vendors that even wanted to ship app stores outside of their own, but I don't recall Google preventing them from doing that.

> If alternative stores are a viable alternative, why do they have ~0% market share?

Because people like Google Play? All I ever read about the app store alternatives that do exist is that people wished they could get rid of them. Personally, I find Google Play to be the best app store around, even compared to iOS' app store, in terms of search functionality and responsiveness. And that's a low bar to clear, given the absolute garbage Google will throw at you with some searches.

With Amazon closing its app store, the only independent app store that has the ability to charge people money has disappeared. That doesn't mean Steam or Epic or Microsoft couldn't set up their own stores if they wanted to. Hell, even with the "verified developer" system, alternative app stores are still possible.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#286

Post by timeon »

cedws wrote: post #46
gpm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.

You had the choice to buy another phone.

Since Google is also moving to this direction can I ask you which phone can I buy that is not part of this cartel and works with banks and public services?

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#287

Post by timeon »

itake wrote: post #108
gpm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.

Mobile apps mobile app fraud empties life savings accounts. I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. Installing an app shouldn't eliminate 30 years of life savings.

More than decade I was and, surprisingly, still am able to install anything on my MacOS (not for long - I know).

Maybe clever engineers at MacOS could help iOS engineers with this?

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#288

Post by nandomrumber »

tucnak wrote: post #231
criddell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do so many people quote the 30% number? Only apps with more than $1,000,000 annual revenue are paying 30%. Most apps are smaller than that and are hit with a 15% fee.

I think you should aggregate by app installs, not distinct apps. The apps to make most impact, are most-installed apps. What if my app blows up to a tune of 1.2 mil? I'll be paying 400k Apple tax just because that's why?

Good point.

The percentage rate should go down the more you sell. That’s usually how scale works.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#289

Post by timeon »

isodev wrote: post #225
mirzap wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real issue isn’t Apple’s commission, it’s the lack of choice. Allowing app installations outside the App Store, as on macOS, would immediately subject Apple’s pricing to market pressure. The fee would drop on its own, without regulation. Macs have allowed apps from "untrusted" sources for decades - and they’re doing just fine. So no, this isn’t about security. It’s about control and monopoly.

Exactly this. There is no way not to choose the App Store, regardless of the price. Apple goes further by making users believe alternatives are "less secure" and what not (which is not true) so it's not just about distribution, it's also a battle of perception. Even if Apple's App Store tax is 0.00, it would still be unfair and have negative impact on consumers due to the limited choice of apps and experiences they c…

> making users believe alternatives are "less secure"

Meanwhile searching on Apple's App Store gives you unrelated crypto scam app as first hit. Apple looks so off-brand these days.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#290

Post by immibis »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #266
somenameforme wrote: post #197

I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.

> I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" I feel like fines aren't even an appropriate remedy for this. They're both inherently arbitrary and not something that actually fixes it. And that combination gives governments a perverse incentive, because they get $2B to put in their own pockets…

Fines can work. We should continue fining them one day of revenue every day until compliance occurs.
Post reply on HN