Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple already forces you to sometimes, for example if you want to buy a Kindle e-book.
Amazon forces their users to leave the app, not Apple.
It's understandable they don't want to pay the mafia.
US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
391–400 of 1001 posts
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If the web was invented today browsers would never be allowed on the App Store. Not even a dumbed down version without advanced scripting capabilities. The fact that they have a browser and allow “3p browsers” is only because the web was already established and customers wouldn’t have bought in without it. iPhones and iPads are not general purpose computing devices. Not by…
Technically, third-party browsers are NOT allowed. The only browsers allowed are built using Apple's "open-source" WebKit.
Don't many apps use their own in app browser and not Safari?
https://krausefx.com/blog/announcing-inappbrowsercom-see-wha...
I always thought that a company should make an app those does something trivially, but also has its own in app browser as the true functionality.
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should discuss the points on their merits, not based on who's making them and how much money they have. Its not based on how much money they have. Its how they've managed to accumulate the money - by gouging devs.
[flagged]
>Why do you get to run a business off it for free?
There isn't a divine commandment as to what rights we "should" have. We vote, fight, protest and get to make up our own rights.
>They spend hundreds of millions on SWE salaries to make a nice SDK for you to use. They’re also operating all the servers. Your $100 does not cover it. It’s a symbiotic relationship. At least see it and acknowledge it.
I don't feel like paying for an Apple executives BMW car payment. But you do you.
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.
Even if you're side-loading, you're still using Apple IP. Every single framework and the OS itself up to the Mach OSS Kernel is Apple IP. It would be entirely unfeasible to run anything on an iPhone without some Apple IP. You'd be looking at an Asahi Linux for iPhone.
An OS without any apps is a barren asteroid. Cool for a few minutes but not a place to stay.
Apple is also benefiting from developers IP, as they enrich their value proposition.
Should Intel or AMD get a cut from any app (including Open Source) on Windows and Linux? Should MS get a cut of every app you run on Windows?
You buying the device compensates Apple IP. Commonly their marketing showcases heavily third party apps.
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#395It's incredible that there are actually people in this thread arguing in favor of Apple. You don't need to defend the trillion dollar company. They are not your friend, they do not care about you, your work or your life. All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes than make a few people who already have everything even richer.
I've yet to see an HN hate thread about the trillion dollar company Google and its Play Store, with the same fees, stealing 30% from an even broader part of society.
There are threads pretty much daily about how evil Google is.
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should discuss the points on their merits, not based on who's making them and how much money they have. Its not based on how much money they have. Its how they've managed to accumulate the money - by gouging devs.
[flagged]
It’s a symbiotic relationship
Yes, exactly. It's symbiotic because Apple needs apps to sell iPhones in the first place. Apple is already getting their cut of the symbiotic relationship by selling their massively profitable iPhone hardware, full stop. Any chance you remember the first year of the iPhone when there were no third party apps? Other than being a good phone, it was basically just a technological novelty, and that was about it. Third party apps are literally what give value to the iPhone (and other iOS devices).
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also think apple's 30% cut is excessive, but I don't think this line of argument helps. We should discuss the points on their merits, not based on who's making them and how much money they have.
> We should discuss the points on their merits, not based on who's making them and how much money they have. Its not based on how much money they have. Its how they've managed to accumulate the money - by gouging devs.
To be fair, roughly half of Apple's money is made from hardware. The app store is extremely lucrative and apparently 70%+ of their revenue from the App store is just leeching off of mobile games, but Apple can definitely survive without the app store if push came to shove.
BUT, I will also mention that part of its market capture comes from all the charges on devs even before the rev share. You need apple equipment to develop, and they (apparently) don't sell server racks anymore for businesses to scale off of, nor any legitimate form of emulation. You have a small cost per year to have a developer account, and a cost to submit your app for review. Then if you care about visibilty they have their own ad discovery program you can pay into.
So I did disagree with a brief judge statement about how "It's possible to skirt around Apple's innnovation for free...". Apple controls and charges for the entire pipeline, even before you launch the app.
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#398I'm an app designer and was able to get my PWA to look very native. This is my way to avoid the app store fees which are absolutely ridiculous. Apps take up too much storage space anyways.
I’m extremely familiar with the iOS native components (I even made some of them originally). I’d like to see your PWA to see if your claim is true.
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#399There's a strong chance this will be shot down as "bad-faith" compliance. Rumor is Epic will quickly contest it [Update: confirmed] https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/174740814726057173...
[flagged]
Re: US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure Epic actually has standing anymore. They did back when they were part of the developer program. If they can make their case that it is bad faith compliance as part of their original case before the Court goes “c’ya, we’re done here”, they might have something, but Apple revoked Epic’s membership for violating their terms in the developer program worldwide and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, Apple has…
IANAL, but at face value, that seems like it would be, well, quite insane? To emphasize, I've seen plenty of insane stuff in the legal system, but if the argument is basically that Epic doesn't have standing because Apple won't let them be in a position where they could have standing , yet they generally offer that position (dev program membership) to the public at large, that seems like some sort of Catch-22-ish nig…
It’s not that difficult to follow. As I recall, and feel free to correct me on the chronology if I get something out of order, it went something like this:
- Epic pushed an update to Fortnite at some point to the App Store that would allow them to issue an update from the server side to enable a flag to offer Epic’s own payment processor where you could buy in-game currency from them instead of IAP. They then issued a server update toggling this flag and began advertising it to Fortnite players immediately.
- Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store for violating their policies.
- Epic files suit almost immediately and begins a PR and advertising blitz they had clearly prepped far in advance. In other words, picked a fight. Epic has standing for this suit because they have suffered a harm (Apple removed their app).
- After a grace period in which Apple explicitly laid out to Epic that they were risking their developer account, offered them time to get back into compliance and resubmit Fortnite to the App Store, they terminated Epic’s developer program account. This ended Apple’s business relationship with Epic.
- That lawsuit has now concluded. Apple took it on the cheek for the anti-steering provisions and has come up with a plan to comply which they are now implementing, all appeals have been exhausted, and Apple and Epic no longer have a business relationship.
(I’m missing some details, and the language is vague because I honestly can’t remember the full timeline of events and would rather be vague than wrong here, but that should the gist of it.)
Put another way, when you choose to be in a business relationship with Apple, Apple is also agreeing to be in a business relationship with you. Apple has not chosen to re-enter a business relationship with Epic, and has rejected Epic’s offers to do business with them. It’s a simple as that. So how can Epic now argue that they have standing for harm caused by Apple’s plan for compliance that affect the way they do business with developers in their developer program when they are no longer in Apple’s developer program?
Once the judge decides they’re done and there’s no more avenues of appeal or additional grounds for appeal, they’ll have no more standing than some random guy off the street who has never signed a single agreement with Apple, not even an iTunes ToS agreement. From what I gather, the Judge wants to be done here too, Epic has had their days in court with the full due process of law but there are other cases to be heard and Epic doesn’t get to hold up the courts any longer because they didn’t get the W they were looking for.
Somebody else, if they think they can do it, can try to have a go at Apple next, but even with the one L they took on anti-steering, I think without some new laws being written their entire business model just got a lot more legally resilient.
Now why is standing important? Put simply, in theory, you can basically file suit against anyone for anything, but if you didn’t actually suffer a harm, and you can’t convince a Judge in the jurisdiction in which you allegedly suffered the harm that you did, then they’re going to throw out your case. It’s a waste of the courts time if there’s no case to be made, you filed suit in the wrong jurisdiction, or you filed suit under the wrong provisions of the law under which you are arguing you suffered a harm.